PL 3 · cols. 1325–1412

Auctoritas pontificia, notissimo Cypriani facto a quibusdam neotericis impugnata, sed a sapientissimis Galliae theologis solide vindicata (dissertatio historico-dogmatica, cum appendice ad vitam S. Stephani)

Editors' preface

PL 3:1325

AUCTORITAS PONTIFICIA,

PONTIFICAL AUTHORITY,

NOTISSIMO CYPRIANI FACTO

FROM THE MOST NOTORIOUS DEED OF CYPRIAN

A QUIBUSDAM NEOTERICIS INPUGNATA, SED A SAPIENTISSIMIS GALLIAE

ASSAILED BY CERTAIN MODERNS, BUT BY THE WISEST THEOLOGIANS

THEOLOGIS SOLIDE VINDICATA

OF FRANCE SOLIDLY VINDICATED

ANONYMI DISSERTATIO HISTORICO-DOGMATICA.

A HISTORICO-DOGMATIC DISSERTATION BY AN ANONYMOUS AUTHOR.

(Aven. 1740.)

(Avignon, 1740.)

PRAEFATIO.

PREFACE.

Varia inter argumenta quae ad novae opinionis patrocinium ex vetustiori etiam antiquitate extundere conati sunt neoterici quidam, Romanae infallibilitatis hostes, nullum, opinor, famosius apud ipsos ac frequentius quam quod, ex trito pervulgatoque S. Cyprianum inter et S. Stephanum Romanum pontificem in causa baptismatis haereticorum dissidio eruere cogitarunt. En perpetuus illorum equus bellator, praecipuaque machina, qua in sacram Romanorum Pontificum auctoritatem arierant. Illud argumentum, quo maxime gloriantur, scriptorum suorum ubique versant, ostentant ac urgere non cessant. Tot illud modis exponunt, totque, opportune importune locis intrudunt, ut majorem saepe voluminis partem occupet. Diceres pontificiam auctoritatem cum hoc Cypriani dissidio adeo nexam, ut de ea sine isto loqui vel scribi non possit. At enim cur non ita senterent, qui ex unico Cypriani facto evidenter ac necessario sequi contendunt non

Among the various arguments which certain moderns, enemies of Roman infallibility, have tried to hammer out even from the more ancient antiquity in patronage of a new opinion, none, I think, is more famous among them or more frequent than the one they have thought to dig out of the well-worn and widely published dissension between St Cyprian and St Stephen, the Roman pontiff, in the cause of the baptism of heretics. Behold their perpetual war-horse and chief engine, with which they battered the sacred authority of the Roman Pontiffs. That argument, in which they most glory, they turn over everywhere in their writings, display, and do not cease to press. They set it out in so many ways, and thrust it in, in season and out of season, in so many places, that it often takes up the greater part of a volume. You would say that pontifical authority is so bound up with this dissension of Cyprian that one can neither speak nor write of it without this. But indeed why should they not think so, who contend that from the single deed of Cyprian it follows evidently and necessarily that there did not

Editors' notes and page, col. 1325

Page

running head: 1325 PARS II. — RECENTIORUM
marginal letters: A (in col. 1326); B (in col. 1326); C (in col. 1326)
old-edition numerals: 1275 before causa
other: seven full-width lines across cols. 1325-1326 not set: AUCTORITAS PONTIFICIA, / NOTISSIMO CYPRIANI FACTO / A QUIBUSDAM NEOTERICIS INPUGNATA, SED A SAPIENTISSIMIS GALLIAE / THEOLOGIS SOLIDE VINDICATA / ANONYMI DISSERTATIO HISTORICO-DOGMATICA. / (Aven. 1740.) / PRAEFATIO.; editors' matter: siasticarum contemptores... non (entire column); word split from preceding column: siasticarum (ecclesiasticarum)
other: a full-width band stands across cols 1325/1326 in mid-page: the 1 paragraph(s) above it in col 1326 are set here, after the 1 above it in col 1325 (reading order, moved on receipt); the band itself (its title lines) is not set by the volunteer page: set it here, at the move, with full_width
other: the column opens with the end of the previous work (another unit); not set here: the unit begins at Varia inter argumenta
running head: 1325 PARS II. — RECENTIORUM EXCURSUS. 1326
marginal letters: A ‹siasticarum contemptores traditionum› (preceding work); B ‹Varia inter argumenta quae ad novae opinionis›; C ‹auctoritatem cum hoc Cypriani dissidio adeo nexam›
old-edition numerals: 1275 after ‹in› (Romanum pontificem in)
other: the title band (AUCTORITAS PONTIFICIA … PRAEFATIO) is the title of the work, printed full width across cols 1325-1326; set here at the head of c1325. Above it, the last lines of the preceding piece (siasticarum contemptores traditionum … labem suspicetur?, PARS II. Recentiorum excursus) stand across both columns; they belong to the preceding unit and are not set here. 'contendunt': last letters blotted in the type, read as contendunt. 'arierant': intended form uncertain (arietarunt or arietabant).

PL 3:1326

eam splendidissimo Ecclesiae Africanae lumini insedisse pontificiae inerrantiae sententiam, cui tot nuperos, ut aiunt, Romauae curiae adultores servire non pudet.

dwell in that most splendid light of the African Church the opinion of pontifical inerrancy, which so many recent flatterers, as they say, of the Roman curia are not ashamed to serve.

Mirum profecto quod tam validum, tam evidens, et quidem ex primaeva antiquitate depromptum argumentum, primos ac celebriores effugerit, qui suprenam evertere Romani Pontificis auctoritatem aggressi sunt; Gersonem dico, Almainum, Richerium, Majorem, aliosque paucos istorum commilitones qui, ad saeculum usque proxime elapsum pontificiam inerrantiam scriptis impugnarunt, quorum nemini, quod sciam, unquam venit in mentem hoc Cypriani dissidium ad eam impetendam allegare vel proferre. Num illis ignota tam celebris, tam ubique nota contentio? Suos certe neoterici nostri magistros de tam supina ignorantia postulari non paterentur. Noverant Sorbonici doctores quod vix aliquem theologiae vel historiae tyrunculum

It is surely a wonder that so strong, so evident an argument, and one drawn moreover from primitive antiquity, escaped the first and more celebrated men who undertook to overturn the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff: I mean Gerson, Almain, Richer, Major, and the few other comrades-in-arms of theirs who, down to the century just past, assailed pontifical inerrancy in their writings; to none of whom, so far as I know, did it ever come to mind to allege or bring forward this dissension of Cyprian in order to attack it. Was so celebrated a contention, one known everywhere, unknown to them? Our moderns would certainly not suffer their masters to be charged with so supine an ignorance. The doctors of the Sorbonne knew that scarcely any young beginner in theology or history

Editors' notes and page, col. 1326

Page

running head: RECENTIORUM EXCURSUS. 1326
marginal letters: A concilium (seu Arelatense; B eam splendidissimo Ecclesiae; C tam ubique nota
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: seven full-width lines across cols. 1325-1326 not set: AUCTORITAS PONTIFICIA, / NOTISSIMO CYPRIANI FACTO / A QUIBUSDAM NEOTERICIS INPUGNATA, SED A SAPIENTISSIMIS GALLIAE / THEOLOGIS SOLIDE VINDICATA / ANONYMI DISSERTATIO HISTORICO-DOGMATICA. / (Aven. 1740.) / PRAEFATIO.; editors' matter: concilium (seu... tyrunou- (entire column); word split at end of column: tyrunou- (tyrunculum)
other: the 1 paragraph(s) of this column above the full-width band are set under col 1325 (reading order, moved on receipt)
other: the word tyrunoulum was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1327
running head: 1325 PARS II. — RECENTIORUM EXCURSUS. 1326
marginal letters: A ‹concilium (seu Arelatense can. 8› (preceding work); B ‹eam splendidissimo Ecclesiae Africanae›; C ‹tam ubique nota contentio›
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: 'Romauae curiae': the page prints Romauæ (turned n); set as printed (Q4a; earlier set Romanae). The column ends on a word split at the break, 'tyruncu-', completed at the top of col 1327 ('lum latebat'); set whole here as tyrunculum (Q4a), the tail not restored in col 1327. Preceding unit's closing lines at the page top not set.
misprints kept as printed: Romauae (for Romanae); suprenam (for supremam); adultores (for adulatores)

PL 3:1327

latebat; at quod ex illa Cyprianum inter et Stephanum contentione recentiores adversus Romanam infallibitatem extundunt argumentum, nedum ipsis evidens ac necessarium visum fuerit, futile adeo ac imbecille judicarunt, ut nec inter levissima quae ipsi congessere argumenta locum obtinere permiserint; adeo verum est ea saepe tanquam firmissima et evidentia a discipulis haberi, quae magistris nec prolatu digna videantur.

yet the argument which more recent writers hammer out from that contention between Cyprian and Stephen against Roman infallibility, so far from seeming evident and necessary to them, they judged so futile and weak that they did not permit it to obtain a place even among the slightest arguments which they themselves heaped together; so true is it that those things are often held by disciples as most firm and evident, which to the masters do not seem worthy even of being brought forward.

Et si tamen recens apud Catholicos sit ventilatum istud a neotericis argumentum, eoque nomine novitatum amatoribus haud ingratum, non propterea suam hisce theologis originem acceptam refert: antiquiores parentes habet, a quibus illud mutuati sunt hodierni Romanae inerrantiae osores. His nempe praeiverunt Lutherus, Calvinus, Centuriatores Magdeburgenses, Marcus Anthonius de Dominis, quos, ut alios id ponderis scriptores taceam, secuti sunt Casaubonus, Herbetus Thorudicius, Joseph Henricus Ottius, Basnagius, Blondellus, Joannes Forbesius, Fridericus Spanhemius, qui omnes, ad profligandam supremam Romani Pontificis auctoritatem, Cypriani sensus ac in causa Baptismatis haereticorum agendi rationem urgere centies, ac Catholicis ad nauseam usque objectare non destiterunt, Tales porro adversariis praedecessores quis invideat?...

And yet although that argument has recently been ventilated among Catholics by moderns, and on that score is not unpleasing to lovers of novelties, it does not on that account owe its origin to these theologians: it has more ancient parents, from whom today's haters of Roman inerrancy have borrowed it. Namely, there went before them Luther, Calvin, the Magdeburg Centuriators, Marco Antonio de Dominis, whom, to be silent concerning other writers of that weight, there followed Casaubon, Herbert Thorndike, Johann Heinrich Hottinger, Basnage, Blondel, John Forbes, Friedrich Spanheim, who all, in order to overthrow the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff, did not cease to urge a hundred times the sentiments of Cyprian and his manner of acting in the cause of the Baptism of heretics, and to object them to Catholics even to nausea. Now who would envy our adversaries such predecessors?...

Nil igitur novi a neotericis nostris hac in re prolatum, nil quod a Lutheranis et Calvinianis jam pridem praeformatum, ac centies inculcatum non fuerit, ut non semel observarunt eruditi Galliae theologi. Prae caeteris audiatur, qui elucidandae huic Cypriani cum Stephano Romano Pontifice contentioni data opera incubuit, D. Chiconot, doctor Sorbonicus, in dissertatione Gallica sur la célèbre dispute entre le Pape S. Etienne et S. Cyprien évêque de Carthage, regia cum approbatione Parisiis edita an. 1725. « Lutherus, inquit, Calvinus, Antonius de Dominis et ac potissimum posterioris aevi novatores indigne abusi sunt modo quo S. martyr Cyprianus in causa baptismi haereticorum erga S. Stephanum Rom. Pontificem sese gessit, ad labefactandam auctoritatis praestantiam quae Christi vicario competit. »

Nothing new therefore has been brought forward by our moderns in this matter, nothing which had not long since been fashioned beforehand by the Lutherans and Calvinists, and inculcated a hundred times, as the learned theologians of France have more than once observed. Beyond the rest let him be heard who purposely applied himself to elucidating this contention of Cyprian with Stephen, the Roman Pontiff, Monsieur Chiconot, doctor of the Sorbonne, in the French dissertation Sur la célèbre dispute entre le Pape S. Étienne et S. Cyprien évêque de Carthage, published at Paris with royal approbation in the year 1725. "Luther, says he, Calvin, Antonio de Dominis, and especially the innovators of a later age have unworthily abused the manner in which the holy martyr Cyprian bore himself towards St. Stephen, the Roman Pontiff, in the cause of the baptism of heretics, in order to shake the pre-eminence of authority which belongs to the Vicar of Christ."

Conptemptissima jam incedebat tota istius argumenti moles a Lutheranis et Calvinianis fabricata, cum recentibus Romanae infallibilitatis osoribus placuit eamdem e tumulo qui sepulta jacebat, eruere, illamque novo restitutam apparatu, multis excultam laboribus obtinenti apud Catholicos omnes doctrinae objicere. Non disquisitionibus, non vigiliis, non

Most despised already went the whole mass of that argument fabricated by the Lutherans and Calvinists, when it pleased the recent haters of Roman infallibility to dig up the same from the tomb wherein it lay buried, and restored with a new apparatus and polished with many labours, to object it to the doctrine obtaining among all Catholics. They spared neither disquisitions, nor watchings, nor

Editors' notes and page, col. 1327

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1327)

Defensio declarationis Cleri Gallicani an. 1682, sub nomine Bossuetii Meldensis episcopi ab anonymo edita Luxemburgi an. 1830 parte II, lib. XIV, cap. 5.

Defence of the Declaration of the Gallican Clergy of 1682, published anonymously under the name of Bossuet, bishop of Meaux, at Luxembourg in 1830, part II, book XIV, chapter 5.

(printed under page 715)

(2) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1327)

Fleuriacus, Hist. Eccl. lib. VII, cap. 32 : Le decret du pape Etienne revêtu de de toute la force qu'il pouvait lui donner.

Fleury, Ecclesiastical History, book VII, chapter 32: "The decree of Pope Stephen, invested with all the force he could give it."

(printed under page 715)

(3) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in cols 1327–1328)

Epistola de Potestate ecclesiastica ad Martinum Steyaert typis mandata an 1688 : Erravit Cyprianus, sed quia nondum locuta erat Ecclesia, quamvis, contra sensisset, scripsisset, et præcepisset Stephanus (quis ex nostris recentioribus scholasticis eum ex Cathedra locutum fuisse non agnoscat), error tamen Cypriani excusatur, non ergo infallibilis Stephanus habebatur.

Letter On Ecclesiastical Power to Martin Steyaert, printed in 1688: "Cyprian erred, but because the Church had not yet spoken, his error is excused, even though Stephen had thought, written and commanded the contrary (and which of our more recent scholastics would not acknowledge that he spoke ex cathedra?); therefore Stephen was not held to be infallible."

(printed under page 715)

Page

running head: 1327 DE HAERETICORUM BA
marginal letters: A (in col. 1328); B (in col. 1328); C (in col. 1328); D (in col. 1328)
old-edition numerals: 1276 before ut
other: editors' matter: lum latebat... non (entire column); word split from preceding column: lum (tyrunculum)

PL 3:1328

oleo pepercerunt, ut argumenti jampridem profligati ruinas resarcirent, rudera colligerent, ex quibus novum machinamentum architectarentur. Verum optime conscii non posse illud consistere, nisi firmioribus quam antea fulcimentis communiretur, duo hactenus inusitata confinxerunt. Satis haud illis fuit quod Cyprianus Stephano restiterit, eumque erroris insimulaverit, quae quidem ab heterodoxis jam fuerant praeoccupata; ultra progressi palam assueruerunt decretum, cui reluctatus est Cyprianus, solemne fuisse Romani Pontificis judicium, omni qua poterat auctoritate praeditum, et illam tamen Cypriani intercessionem culpa omni vacasse contenderunt. Atque his quidem duobus recentis doctrinae capitibus omni qua valebant arte confirmandis toti deinceps allaboraverunt.

oil, in order to patch up the ruins of an argument long since overthrown, and to collect the rubbish out of which they might build a new engine. Yet being exceedingly well aware that it could not stand unless it were fortified with firmer props than before, they devised two things hitherto unheard of. It was not enough for them that Cyprian withstood Stephen, and accused him of error—things which had indeed already been seized upon beforehand by the heterodox; advancing further, they openly asserted that the decree against which Cyprian struggled was a solemn judgement of the Roman Pontiff, endowed with all the authority he could have, and nevertheless contended that that opposition of Cyprian was free from all blame. And to confirming these two heads of recent doctrine with all the art wherewith they were able, they thereafter wholly laboured.

Quod autem ad primum attinet, insonare coeperunt ac publice contestari Stephani judicium tota Cathedrae auctoritate fuisse prolatum; omni robore quod a Romano Pontifice conferri queat fuisse munitum; nil in eo defuisse quod in decretis ex Cathedra latis requiritur; tam splendida, tam magnifica, tam fastuosa sunt, quae pro describenda hujusce rescripti pontificii majestate profuderunt, ut quibus haec arrident, nil ultra desiderent aut desiderare queant.

Now as for what pertains to the first, they began to sound forth and publicly protest that the judgement of Stephen was pronounced with the whole authority of the Chair; that it was fortified with all the strength that can be conferred by a Roman Pontiff; that nothing was lacking in it which is required in decrees pronounced ex Cathedra; so splendid, so magnificent, so pompous are the things which they have poured forth for describing the majesty of this pontifical rescript, that those on whom these things smile desire nothing further, nor can desire it.

Cum tamen optime novissent neoterici nostri complures alios non tam magno, splendidoque verborum apparatu, quam solidis rerum probationibus delectari, nec eo usque attigisse, conceptam de ipsis existimationem, ut nova quaeque praedicantibus plena fides haberetur; cum probe intelligerent non tantam esse suam ipsorum apud omnes auctoritatem, ut quam ipsi Romanis Pontificibus inerrantiam abjudicant, ipsismet illis adjudicetur, prudenter arbitrati sunt non rhetorices figuris tantum, sed et validis, ut possent, argumentis ostendendum esse quod de solemni Stephani rescripto jactitabant. Tanta vero fuit in iis seligendis mentis sagacitas, tanta ingenii vis et acies, ut affirmari non verear congruentiora rei probandae argumenta afferri non potuisse; quid enim magis consentaneum, quam, sicuti certis indubia, antiquis vetera probantur, sic figmentis commenta, novis recentia confirmare? Id porro viriliter, abundeque praestiterunt neoterici nostri. Etenim quod a Stephano Romano Pontifice tantae solemnitatis decretum prodiisset, nova res erat et hactenus inaudita. Quid ergo neoterici? Nova pariter nec prius audita ad id probandum argumenta fabricarunt, ab iis enim scriptoribus Christianus tandem didicit orbis

Yet since our moderns knew exceedingly well that several others are delighted not so much with a great and splendid apparatus of words as with solid proofs of facts, and that the esteem conceived concerning themselves had not reached so far that full credit would be given to them when proclaiming every novelty; since they rightly understood that their own authority among all was not so great that the inerrancy which they themselves adjudge away from the Roman Pontiffs should be adjudged to themselves, they prudently supposed that what they boasted concerning the solemn rescript of Stephen must be shown not only by figures of rhetoric, but also by valid arguments, so far as they could. Now so great was the sagacity of their mind in selecting them, so great the force and keenness of their wit, that I do not fear to affirm that arguments more suited to the thing to be proved could not have been brought forward: for what is more agreeable than, just as undoubted things are proved by certain ones, and ancient things by old ones, so to confirm fictions by figments, and recent things by new ones? Furthermore, our moderns have performed this manfully and abundantly. For that a decree of so great solemnity had gone forth from Stephen, the Roman Pontiff, was a new thing and hitherto unheard of. What therefore did the moderns do? To prove this they fabricated arguments equally new and never heard before; for from those writers the Christian world has at length learned

Editors' notes and page, col. 1328

Page

running head: ETICORUM BAPTISMATE. 1328
marginal letters: A oleo pepercerunt, ut; B mandis toti deinceps; C ptam de ipsis; D phano Romano Pontifice
old-edition numerals: 1277 before nec
other: editors' matter: oleo pepercerunt... orbis (entire column)

PL 3:1329

Stephani decretum in concilio Romano editum fuisse, ad omnes ecclesias a Stephano fuisse directum ac missum, solemni illo decreto certissimam fuisse Stephani mentem, ut omnibus omnino fidelibus fide credendum proponeret non esse denuo tingendos homines ab haereticis baptizatos, cum intra Ecclesiae communionem sese recipiebant; quae quidem omnia cum antea mortalium nemini in mentem venerint, adduci profecto debebantur ad illud probandum quod nullum in antiquitate tota vestigium habebat. Haec apposite neoterici nostri, ut petitum istud a Cypriano argumentum in Lutheranis jamdudum profligatum ex hac parte suffulcirent ac corroborarent.

that the decree of Stephen was published in a Roman council, that it was directed and sent by Stephen to all the churches, and that by that solemn decree it was the most certain mind of Stephen to propose to all the faithful altogether as to be believed by faith that men baptized by heretics must not be dipped anew when they betook themselves within the communion of the Church; all which things indeed, since previously they had come into the mind of no mortal, assuredly had to be adduced to prove that which had no trace in all antiquity. These things our moderns aptly brought forward, that on this side they might prop up and strengthen that argument sought from Cyprian and long since overthrown in the Lutherans.

Ad secumdum vero quod spectat, quae non, bone Deus! illi dixerunt, quae non cumularunt ut Cypriani in Stephanum agendi rationem non solam ab omni reatu immunem, sed et charitatis et aequitatis plenam ac animo episcopali et apostolico vere dignam nobis ostenderent ac suaderent? Haec nisi legerentur, quis uspiam catholicus, quis sanus credere potuisset? Statim quo lectorum animos sibi conciliarent, nec non ad quae pro Cypriani defensione prolaturi erant benigne excipienda redderent paratissimos, maxima Cypriani merita commendare, immensa de Cypriano celebrare praeconia adorti sunt. Quaesita undique labore immenso atque congesta quaecunque ad Cypriani commendationem aliquatenus conducerent, concilia tum oecumenica, tum particularia. Romani ipsi Pontifices, Ecclesiae Patres et Doctores, historici et Graeci et Latini, quotquot esse poterant, appellati fuerunt. Adducta nova et vetera Martyrologia atque Kalendaria, Missale Ambrosianum, priscae ac recentes diversarum ecclesiarum Missae, Praefationes, et ipse Canon. Citata nova et vetera Breviaria Romana, Hispanica, Gallica, et imo relatae ipsius Breviarii rubricae, nec non variae ecclesiarum Litaniae: laudate quoque Cypriani reliquarum translationes, ipsius festi solemnitates ac plures sub illius nomine ecclesiarum dedicationes, nec omissum quod ab aliquibus in S. Cypriani vigilia jejunium actum fuerit, et quasi tanta monumenta Cypriani magnitudinem atque excellentiam totam, quanta fuit minime satis adumbrarent ac proderent, tot illum nominibus,

Now as for what looks to the second point, what things, good God! did they not say, what things did they not heap up in order to show and persuade us that Cyprian's manner of acting towards Stephen was not only free from all guilt, but also full of charity and equity, and truly worthy of an episcopal and apostolic mind? Unless these things were read, what Catholic anywhere, what sane man could have believed them? Straightway, in order to win over the minds of the readers to themselves, and render them most ready to receive benignly the things which they were about to bring forward for the defence of Cyprian, they undertook to commend the greatest merits of Cyprian, and to celebrate immense praises concerning Cyprian. With immense labour there were sought from all sides and heaped together whatsoever things might in any way conduce to the commendation of Cyprian: councils both oecumenical and particular, the Roman Pontiffs themselves, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, historians both Greek and Latin, as many as could exist, were appealed to. New and old Martyrologies and Calendars were adduced, the Ambrosian Missal, the ancient and recent Masses of diverse churches, the Prefaces, and the Canon itself. New and old Breviaries, Roman, Spanish, and Gallican, were cited, and nay, the rubrics of the Breviary itself were reported, as well as the various Litanies of the churches; the translations also of the relics of Cyprian were praised, the solemnities of his feast, and the many dedications of churches under his name, nor was it omitted that by some a fast was kept on the vigil of St. Cyprian; and as though so great monuments by no means sufficiently sketched out and set forth the whole greatness and excellence of Cyprian, as great as it was, they heap and load him with so many names,

Editors' notes and page, col. 1329

Footnotes

(4) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1329)

Felix Deschamps in sua de summo Pontifice Epistola ad Martinum Steyaert, p. 25 : Stephanus decretum definitorium in concilio Romano edidit et ad omnes fideles direxit quo intendit obligare, sub excommunicationis pœna, omnes omnino fideles ad credendum non rebaptizandos esse baptizatos ab hæreticis.

Félix Deschamps, in his Letter on the Supreme Pontiff to Martin Steyaert, p. 25: "Stephen issued a defining decree in a Roman council and addressed it to all the faithful, by which he meant to bind all the faithful without exception, under pain of excommunication, to believe that those baptized by heretics are not to be rebaptized."

(printed under page 716)

(5) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in cols 1329–1330)

Idem ibid. Et Jacobus Gilbert in tractatu de Sedis apostolicæ primatu, quæst. 5, § 2 : Stephanus decretum definitorium edit et ad omnes fideles dirigit ut illos omnes instruat in materia et puncto summi momenti qua agebatur de validitate vel nullitate baptismi sine quo nullus salvari potest, et per illud decretum intendit obligare omnes omnino fideles ad credendum non rebaptizandos esse baptizatos ab hæreticis. Item defensor Declar Gallic. an. 1682 part. II, lib. XIV, cap. 5 : Stephanus decretum condidit et ad omnes misit ecclesias.

The same, in the same place. And Jacques Gilbert, in his treatise On the Primacy of the Apostolic See, question 5, § 2: "Stephen issues a defining decree and addresses it to all the faithful, to instruct them all in a matter and point of the highest moment, concerning the validity or nullity of baptism, without which no one can be saved; and by that decree he means to bind all the faithful without exception to believe that those baptized by heretics are not to be rebaptized." Likewise the defender of the Gallican Declaration of 1682, part II, book XIV, chapter 5: "Stephen framed a decree and sent it to all the churches."

(printed under page 716)

(6) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1330)

Felix Deschamps, et Jacobus Gilbert in locis modo citatis.

Félix Deschamps and Jacques Gilbert, in the places just cited.

(printed under page 716)

(7) ‹anchor: jejunium actum fuerit› · call in col 1329

Hac in re, consule præ cæteris Launoium in epist. 15, ad Beviluquam, parte VIII, epist. edit. Cantabr. 1889; item P. Gersium in Vita S. Cypriani Gallico idiomate typis mandata Parisiis 1717. Item D. Lombertum in Præfat. operis Gallici inscripti les Œuvres de S. Cyprien traduites en français, edit Rotomag. 1716.

On this matter consult above all Launoy, letter 15, to Bevilacqua, part VIII of the letters, Cambridge edition 1889 [so printed]; likewise Father Gervaise, in the Life of St Cyprian printed in French at Paris in 1717; likewise D. Lombert, in the preface to the French work entitled "The Works of St Cyprian translated into French", Rouen edition, 1716.

(printed under page 716)

Page

running head: 1329 PARS II. — RECENTIORU
marginal letters: A (in col. 1330); B (in col. 1330); C (in col. 1330); D (in col. 1330)
old-edition numerals: 1278 before benigne
other: editors' matter: Stephani decretum... no- (entire column); word split at end of column: no-
other: the word nominibus, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1330

PL 3:1330

encomiis, laudibus absque mensura et numero cumulant, onerantque ut vix hominem credas.

encomiums, and praises without measure and number, so that you would scarcely believe him a man.

Absit ut maximis Cypriani meritis, ac singulari quam apud omnes jure obtinuit venerationi, quidquam detractum velimus. Nobis tamen constat non paucos rerum aequos aestimatores tot in Cyprianum effusas sine delectu laudes ferre non posse, non ea solum de causa quod nimiae laudes vexant modestos, sed quia laus omnis hyperbolica odium primo, deinde contemptum parit. Est enim, inquiunt, in jure titulus de Pluris petitione, ut qui plus postulat, minus accipiat; nobisque a natura inditum est, ut cum aliquis plus justo extollitur, naturali quadam propensione conemur illum deprimere. Cyprianum maximum Ecclesiae africanae decus ornamentum, splendidum sui saeculi lumen, gravissimum totius Ecclesiae doctorem, sanctisimum episcopum ac martyrem gloriosissimum quis non praedicet, quis non praedicare cogitavit unquam? Quis pariter Cyprianm tanquam fidei propugnaculum, traditionum promptuarium, disciplinae ecclesiasticae palladium, moralis evangelicae firmamentum, ac Christianae doctrinae munimentum non agnoscat aut non agnoverit? Haec porro quia certa sunt ac servandos veritatis limites minime transcendunt, libenter et audiuntur, et a nenine non probantur. At quae de Cypriano saepius ostentatur, tanquam inter Ecclesiae doctores ac magistros primatum obtinente, qui ingenii sublimitate, judicii maturitate, dicendi elegantia, doctrinae puritate, eruditionis amplitudine, demum charitate, patientia, pietate, caterisque animi dotibus ac virtutibus vix ulli comparari possit; qui nil nisi sancte gesserit, nil nisi recte docuerit adeo ut « ab illis etiam levissimis erroribus immunis exstiterit, qui primis Ecclesiae Patribus communes fuerunt, » et alia id genus permulta, quae vix in hyperbolico panegyrico tolerarentur, quia nimia et redundantia stomachum movent, frigide excipiuntur, insulsa videntur, spernuntur, et irridentur. Ita plurimi ratiocinantur, qui etsi bene sciant nulli facilius veniam concedi, quam illi qui de nimiis erga nos laudibus accusatur, in illis tamen rependendis modum a nemine excedendum esse putant.

Far be it from us to wish anything detracted from the greatest merits of Cyprian, and from the singular veneration which he has rightfully obtained among all. Yet it is established to us that not a few fair estimators of things cannot bear so many praises poured forth without discrimination upon Cyprian, not for that reason alone, that excessive praises vex the modest, but because all hyperbolical praise begets first odium, and next contempt. For there is, say they, in law a title On Claiming Too Much, so that he who demands more receives less; and it is implanted in us by nature that when anyone is extolled more than is just, by a certain natural propensity we endeavour to depress him. Who would not proclaim, who ever thought of not proclaiming Cyprian the greatest glory and ornament of the African Church, the splendid light of his century, a most weighty doctor of the whole Church, a most holy bishop and most glorious martyr? Who equally would not recognize or has not recognized Cyprian as a bulwark of the faith, a storehouse of traditions, a palladium of ecclesiastical discipline, a prop of evangelical morals, and a rampart of Christian doctrine? Now these things, because they are certain and by no means transcend the limits of truth that must be kept, are both gladly heard and approved by everyone. Whereas the things which are too often vaunted concerning Cyprian, as obtaining the primacy among the doctors and masters of the Church, who in sublimity of wit, maturity of judgement, elegance of speech, purity of doctrine, amplitude of erudition, and finally in charity, patience, piety, and the rest of the gifts and virtues of the mind can scarcely be compared to anyone; who did nothing save holily, and taught nothing save rightly, so that "he was free even from those slightest errors which were common to the first Fathers of the Church," and very many other things of that sort which would scarcely be tolerated in a hyperbolical panegyric—because being excessive and redundant they turn the stomach, they are received coldly, seem insipid, are spurned, and are laughed at. Thus reason very many who, although they know well that pardon is granted to no one more easily than to him who is accused of excessive praises towards us, nevertheless think that in repaying them due measure ought to be exceeded by no one.

Editors' notes and page, col. 1330

Footnotes

(8) ‹anchor: Patribus communes fuerunt› · call in col 1330

Dupin, Bibliotheca Auctorum Eccles. tom I, pag. 534. Paris. 1688, S. Cyprien est exempt, je ne dis pas seulement des erreurs grossières, mais aussi de celles qui sont légères et communes dans les Pères des premiers siècles.

Dupin, Library of Ecclesiastical Authors, vol. I, p. 534, Paris 1688: "St Cyprian is free, I do not say only from gross errors, but also from those that are slight and common among the Fathers of the first centuries."

(printed under page 716)

Page

running head: RECENTIORUM EXCURSUS. 1330
marginal letters: A minibus, encomiis, laudibus; B splendidum sui saeculi; C demum charitate, patientia,; D (in footnote block)
old-edition numerals: 1279 before nil
other: editors' matter: minibus, encomiis... putant. (entire column); word split from preceding column: minibus (nominibus)

PL 3:1331

Verum quidquid sit de hoc, quod neotericis nostris inuritur, vitio, fateri omnes debemus nil ab ipsis praetermissum, quo lectorum animos ad ea comprobanda disponerent et inclinarent, quae pro Cypriani defensione etiam levissime suppeditarentur. Lectorum igitur animis sic erga Cyprianum dispositis et affectis, rem ipsam attingunt neoterici quos spectamus, atque Cypriani adversus Stephanum agendi rationem vindicare modis omnibus ac defendere aggrediuntur.

Yet whatsoever be the case regarding this fault which is branded upon our moderns, we must all confess that nothing was omitted by them whereby they might dispose and incline the minds of the readers to approve those things which were even most slightly supplied for the defence of Cyprian. When the minds of the readers therefore have been thus disposed and affected towards Cyprian, the moderns whom we have in view touch the matter itself, and undertake in all ways to vindicate and defend Cyprian's manner of acting against Stephen.

Videamus nunc tandem quid pro illius Cypriani defensione protulerint neoterici nostri. Fleuriacus, sicuti sum in describendo Stephani martyrio calamum ita moderatus est, ut tantum traditionis vindicem sine minima laude morientem dimiserit, ita seipsum adeo temperavit in hac Cypriani epistola referenda, ut sapis superque habuerit asserere Cyprianum in hac epistola responsum refutandum assumpsisse. Et revera nihil in ea Cypriani epistola vel tantisper a charitate alienum se deprehendisse nobis significat, quando tradit Cypriani sanctitati suum errorem nullatenus obfuisse, quia non solum Ecclesiae unitatem, sed et charitatem in hoc negotio semper conservaverat.

Let us now at length see what our moderns have brought forward for the defence of that Cyprian. Fleury, just as in describing the martyrdom of Stephen he so moderated his pen that he dismissed so great a defender of tradition dying without the least praise, so restrained himself in reporting this letter of Cyprian that he counted it enough and more than enough to assert that Cyprian in this letter undertook to refute the reply. And in truth he signifies to us that he discovered nothing in that letter of Cyprian even in the least degree alien from charity, when he hands down that his error in no way hindered the holiness of Cyprian, because he had always preserved not only the unity of the Church, but charity also in this business.

Fleuriaco concinit Launoius, qui Cypriani ad Pompeium epistolam celebrat ut nervosam et fortem; illa enim relata: « Haec, inquit, nervose et fortiter Stephano opponit Cyprianus: » imo posterorum judicio memoriae dignissimam illam fuisse tradit aeque ac Firmiliani ad Cyprianum epistolam: « Posteri, inquit, Stephani epistolas memoriae minus dignas, Cypriani vero et Firmiliani epistolas memoriae dignissimas judicarunt. Tillemontius qui Stephanum etiam inhumanitatis accusare non haesitavit, laesam tamen a Cypriano ad Pompeium scribente mansuetudinem ac fraternam charitatem minime fuisse fidenter affirmat.

With Fleury agrees Launoy, who celebrates the letter of Cyprian to Pompeius as sinewy and strong; for after reporting it: "These things, says he, Cyprian sinewily and strongly opposes to Stephen": nay, he hands down that by the judgement of posterity it was most worthy of memory, equally with the letter of Firmilian to Cyprian: "Posterity, says he, judged the letters of Stephen less worthy of memory, but the letters of Cyprian and Firmilian most worthy of memory." Tillemont, who did not hesitate to accuse Stephen even of inhumanity, nevertheless confidently affirms that meekness and fraternal charity were by no means wounded by Cyprian when writing to Pompeius.

Lombertus in sua praefatione praefixa operi Gallice inscripto: Les OEuvres de S. Cyprien, évêque de Carthage et martyr, traduites en français, hanc Cypriani epistolam magnanimitate ac libertate episcopali adeo dignam censuit, ut ab Augustino laudes promeruisse tradat: ea enim recitata erumpit in haec verba: Sic libere S. Cyprianus ac generose suam circa baptismum opinionem contra papam Stephanum defendit, de quo a S. Augustino laudatur; » unde nil mirum, si saepius inculcat Cyprianum in hac de baptismo concertatione « maximae moderationis specimina semper dedisse. » Enumeratos hactenus Cypriani vindices

Lombert, in his preface prefixed to the work entitled in French: Les Œuvres de S. Cyprien, évêque de Carthage et martyr, traduites en français, judged this letter of Cyprian so worthy of episcopal magnanimity and liberty that he hands down that it deserved praises from Augustine: for after reciting it he bursts forth into these words: "Thus freely and generously did St. Cyprian defend his opinion concerning baptism against Pope Stephen, concerning which he is praised by St. Augustine"; whence it is no wonder if he quite often inculcates that Cyprian in this controversy concerning baptism "always gave proofs of the greatest moderation." The defenders of Cyprian hitherto enumerated

Editors' notes and page, col. 1331

Footnotes

(9) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1331)

Hist. Eccles. tom. II. lib, VII, num 28.

Ecclesiastical History, vol. II, book VII, no. 28.

(printed under page 717)

(10) ‹anchor: in hoc negotio semper conservaverat› · call in col 1331

Ibid. num. 32.

Same work, no. 32.

(printed under page 717)

(11) ‹anchor: Hæc, inquit› · call in col 1331

Epist. 15, ad Bevilaq. parte VIII Epistol. pag. 807.

Letter 15, to Bevilacqua, part VIII of the Letters, p. 807.

(printed under page 717)

(12) ‹anchor: epistolas memoriæ dignissimas judicarunt› · call in col 1331

Ibid. pag. 801 l.

Same work, p. 801 l [so printed].

(printed under page 717)

(13) ‹anchor: accusare non hæsitavit› · call in col 1331

Hist. Eccles. tom. IV, art. 49, pag 155.

Ecclesiastical History, vol. IV, article 49, p. 155.

(printed under page 717)

(14) ‹anchor: fuisse fidenter affirmat› · call in col 1331

Ibid. art. 47 pag. 150.

Same work, article 47, p. 150.

(printed under page 717)

(15) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1331)

Lib. V, num. 16, pag. 414.

Book V, no. 16, p. 414.

(printed under page 717)

(16) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1331)

Ibid.

Same place.

(printed under page 717)

(17) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1332)

Ibid. pag. 419.

Same work, p. 419.

(printed under page 717)

Page

running head: 1331 DE HAERETICORUM BA
marginal letters: A (in col. 1332); B (in col. 1332); C (in col. 1332); D (in col. 1332)
old-edition numerals: 1280 after Carthage
other: editors' matter: Verum quidquid... vindices (entire column)

PL 3:1332

superavit P. Gervasius. Etenim in Vita S. Cypriani, quam Gallico idiomate, suppresso tamen nomine, edidit, excellentem vocat quam ad Pompeium Cyprianus scripsit epistolam, in qua elucet « vigor vere apostolicus; tamtamque in illa unctionem ac moderationem Christianam, sive seipsum defendat Cyprianus, sive suum aggrediatur aut refutet adversarium, inveniri contendit, ut fateri omnes oporteat Ecclesiae juribus magis quam propriis illum intendisse; recensitis enim iis omnibus quae, ut supra vidimus, in Stephanum Cyprianus, effutiit, exclamabundus ait: « En praeclarus profecto ardor ac valde spiritualis; in sanctis illis animi impetibus dignoscitur cor amoris divini flammis penitus accensum, ac nihil aliud spirans quam domus Domini gloriam ac pulchritudinem. »

Father Gervaise has surpassed. For in the Life of St. Cyprian, which he published in the French tongue, though with his name suppressed, he calls the letter which Cyprian wrote to Pompeius excellent, wherein shines forth "a truly apostolic vigour"; and contends that so great an unction and Christian moderation is found in it, whether Cyprian defends himself or attacks or refutes his adversary, that all must confess that he was intent upon the rights of the Church rather than his own; for after recounting all those things which, as we saw above, Cyprian blurted out against Stephen, he exclaims: "Behold a noble ardour assuredly and exceedingly spiritual! In those holy impulses of mind is discerned a heart thoroughly kindled with the flames of divine love, and breathing nothing else than the glory and beauty of the house of the Lord."

Demum praetermissis aliis nonnullis id generis scriptoribus, Dupinus in sua Bibliotheca Eccles., nobis significat totidem fuisse veritates, quidquid in Stephanum Cyprianus congessit; ino veritates quas Stephano licet ingratas, ipsa tamen objicere teneretur Carthaginensis episcopus et quantum potuit, consueta sua jucunditate, temperare curaverit. Ubi enim cum Tertulliano Cyprianum comparat, ab illo scribit adversarios injuriose tractari; « At S. Cyprianus, inquit, longe moderatior si quando suis adversariis veritates quae ipsi displiceant dicere tenetur, eas, quantum potest, sua jucunditate temperat; unde licet Stephanum in suo responso magnae duritatis insimulet, nihil tamen in Cypriani ad Pompeium epistola notavit, quod moderationi minus consonum videretur, in quo socium habet Adrianum Baillet in Vitis Sanctorum.

Finally, passing over some other writers of that sort, Dupin in his Ecclesiastical Library signifies to us that whatsoever Cyprian heaped up against Stephen was so many truths; nay, truths which, although unpleasing to Stephen, the Bishop of Carthage himself was nevertheless bound to object, and took care to temper as much as he could with his customary pleasantness. For when he compares Cyprian with Tertullian, he writes that adversaries are treated injuriously by the latter: "Whereas St. Cyprian, says he, being far more moderate, if ever he is bound to speak to his adversaries truths which displease them, tempers them as much as he can with his pleasantness"; whence although he accuses Stephen in his reply of great harshness, yet he noted nothing in the letter of Cyprian to Pompeius which seemed less consonant with moderation; wherein he has Adrien Baillet as partner in the Lives of the Saints.

Haec et alia multa id genus, novaturienses theologi pro vindicanda Cypriani in Stephanum agendi ratione, quae quidem si cuipiam inflata et exaggerata videantur, eo solum nomine sint vituperanda quod veritatem offendant, utcunque tamen toleranda, quod nullius famam, nullius dignitatem, nullius sanctitatem directa saltem fronte impetant. Verum hos intra limites contineri nequaquam valuit effrenie adversariorum in laudanda Cypriani agendi ratione labor et impetus.

These and many other things of that sort the innovating theologians bring forward for vindicating Cyprian's manner of acting towards Stephen, which things indeed, if they seem inflated and exaggerated to anyone, would be blameworthy on this score alone, that they offend the truth, yet would in some measure be tolerable, because they do not at least with a direct front assail anyone's reputation, anyone's dignity, anyone's holiness. Yet the unbridled labour and impulse of our adversaries in praising Cyprian's manner of acting was by no means able to be restrained within these limits.

Mitto insulman illam affectationem, qua saepius inculcant, ac fusiori etiam probare calamo nituntur, Cypranum videlicet longe pluris quam Stephanum in Ecclesia fieri. Dudum est ex quo male olent, vixque ac ne vix quidem in panegyricis oratorum declamationibus sanctorum illae virorum

I pass over that insipid affectation wherewith they quite often inculcate, and strive even with a more diffuse pen to prove, namely that Cyprian is accounted of far more value in the Church than Stephen. It is long since they have smelled ill, and scarcely, nay not even scarcely, are they borne in the panegyrical declamations of orators, those comparisons of holy men

Editors' notes and page, col. 1332

Footnotes

(18) ‹anchor: sua jucunditate temperat› · call in col 1332

Tom. I, pag. 335.

Vol. I, p. 335.

(printed under page 717)

(19) ‹anchor: magnæ duritatis insimulet› · call in col 1332

Ibid, pag. 500.

Same work, p. 500.

(printed under page 717)

(20) ‹anchor: moderationi minus consonum videretur› · call in col 1332

Ibid.

Same place.

(printed under page 717)

(21) ‹anchor: in Vitis Sanctorum› · call in col 1332

Tom. III ad diem 16 Septembris pag. 190, edit. Paris, 1701.

Vol. III, under 16 September, p. 190, Paris edition, 1701.

(printed under page 717)

(22) ‹anchor: in Ecclesia fieri› · call in col 1332

Laumonius in epist. 15 ad Bevilaq. ; P. Gervasius passim in Vita S. Cypr. Lombertus in laud. Præfat. ad opera S. Cypriani.

Launoy [printed "Laumonius"], letter 15, to Bevilacqua; Father Gervaise, throughout his Life of St Cyprian; Lombert, in the cited preface to the works of St Cyprian.

(printed under page 717)

Page

running head: TICORUM BAPTISMATE. 1332
marginal letters: A superavit P. Gervasius.; B nem (17). »; C let (19), nihil tamen; D saepius inculcant, ac
old-edition numerals: 1281 before Mitto
other: editors' matter: superavit P. Gervasius... viro- (entire column); word split at end of column: viro-
other: the word virorum was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1333

PL 3:1333

quos suis fastis ascriptos Ecclesia veneratur, comparationes, et injuriosae utrisque de utrorumque meritis contentiones, eo collimantes, ut alterius sanctitas alterius attenuatione augeatur.

whom the Church venerates as enrolled in her calendars, and those contentions injurious to both concerning the merits of both, aiming at this, that the holiness of the one may be increased by the disparagement of the other.

Negligo pariter tot neotericorum conatus in amplificandam eorum multitudinem quos Cypriano potius quam Stephano complausisse scribunt Tillemontius, Dupinus, Launoius, P. Gervasius, ex quorum calculo sequeretur Dionysium Alexand., Dionysium et Philemonem, presbyteros Romanos, Hieronymum, Athanasium, Optatum Milevit.; synodum Nicaenam, Basilium, Graegorium Nazianzenum, Cyrillum Hierosol., Gregorium Nyssenum, Ambrosium, Augustinum, Theodoretum, Romanam sub Gelasio synodum, Fulgentium Ruspensem episcopum, Gregorium Magnum, synodum Quinisextam, Cypriano potius quam Stephano adhaesisse. Ecquis enim vero tot conatuum, tot laborum fructus? Quod sentio libere profero in congerendis tot in Stephanum adversariis manifestarunt neoterici, quo fuerint erga Stephanum sicuti erga tot Patrum memoriam, spretis historiae ac aequitatis legibus, animo affecti.

I neglect equally so many endeavours of the moderns in amplifying the multitude of those whom Tillemont, Dupin, Launoy, and Father Gervaise write to have applauded Cyprian rather than Stephen, from whose reckoning it would follow that Dionysius of Alexandria, Dionysius and Philemon, Roman presbyters, Jerome, Athanasius, Optatus of Milevis, the Nicene Synod, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Augustine, Theodoret, the Roman Synod under Gelasius, Fulgentius, bishop of Ruspe, Gregory the Great, and the Quinisext Synod adhered to Cyprian rather than to Stephen. For what in truth is the fruit of so many endeavours, of so many labours? What I think I freely utter: in heaping up so many adversaries against Stephen, the moderns have manifested how they were affected in mind towards Stephen, just as towards the memory of so many Fathers, despising the laws of history and of equity.

Haec, inquam, aliaque similia praetermitto, quae cum sequentibus comparata leviora sunt, quam ut morari nos debeant. Quid igitur de Stephano Pontifice maximo traditionis apostolicae vindice ac martyre sanctissimo tradunt, qui Catholicos, qui humiles filios, qui moderatos scriptores se esse profitentur ac videri volunt?

These things, I say, and others like them I pass over, which compared with those that follow are lighter than that they ought to delay us. What therefore concerning Stephen, the Supreme Pontiff, the defender of apostolic tradition and most holy martyr, do they hand down who profess themselves and wish to seem to be Catholics, humble sons, and moderate writers?

Stephanus, inquiunt neoterici nostri, indigne penitus erga Cyprianum se gessit, ad Cyprianum scripsit epistolam indignam prorsus quae a Romano Pontifice ad Carthaginensem scriberetur, superbam et injuriarum plenam, magnopere contumeliosam. Stephanus fastum tumide ac dominatum affectat, imperantem ac tyrannum agit, magna inhumanitate Cypriano respondet, inhumanum valde erga Cyprianum se praebet, Stephanus Cyprianum inauditum judicat et

Stephen, say our moderns, bore himself altogether unworthily towards Cyprian; he wrote to Cyprian a letter utterly unworthy to be written by a Roman Pontiff to the Bishop of Carthage, proud and full of injuries, exceedingly contumelious. Stephen swellingly affects pride and domination, acts the ruler and the tyrant, replies to Cyprian with great inhumanity, shows himself exceedingly inhuman towards Cyprian; Stephen judges Cyprian unheard and

Editors' notes and page, col. 1333

Footnotes

(23) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1333)

Hist. Eccl. tom. IV, art. 43, 44 et 45.

Ecclesiastical History, vol. IV, articles 43, 44 and 45.

(printed under page 718)

(24) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1333)

Bibliot. Eccl. tom. I, p. 540.

Ecclesiastical Library, vol. I, p. 540.

(printed under page 718)

(25) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1333)

Epist. 15, ad Bevilaq.

Letter 15, to Bevilacqua.

(printed under page 718)

(26) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1333)

In Vita S. Cypr. lib. V, num. 1, 2, et alibi.

In the Life of St Cyprian, book V, nos. 1, 2, and elsewhere.

(printed under page 718)

(27) ‹anchor: erga Cyprianum se gessit› · call in col 1333

P. Gervas. in Vita S. Cypr. pag. 455.

Father Gervaise, in the Life of St Cyprian, p. 455.

(printed under page 718)

(28) ‹anchor: ad Carthaginensem scriberetur› · call in col 1333

Idem ibid. pag. 412, Baillet. de vitis Sanctorum, ad diem 2 August. pag. 111. Idem Tillemont. Hist. Eccl. tom. IV pag. 330.

The same, in the same work, p. 412; Baillet, On the Lives of the Saints, under 2 August, p. 111. Likewise Tillemont, Ecclesiastical History, vol. IV, p. 330.

(printed under page 718)

(29) ‹anchor: et injuriarum plenam› · call in col 1333

Lombert. in laud Præfat. pag. 73.

Lombert, in the cited preface, p. 73.

(printed under page 718)

(30) ‹anchor: magnopere contumeliosam› · call in col 1333

Lombert. ibid.

Lombert, same place.

(printed under page 718)

(31) ‹anchor: dominatum affectat› · call in col 1333

P. Gervasius in Vita S. Cypr., pag. 413, et pag. 461.

Father Gervaise, in the Life of St Cyprian, p. 413 and p. 461.

(printed under page 718)

(32) ‹anchor: ac tyrannum agit› · call in col 1333

P, Gervas. ibid. pag. 431.

Father Gervaise, same work, p. 431.

(printed under page 718)

(33) ‹anchor: inhumanitate Cypriano respondet› · call in col 1333

Dupin. Bibl. Eccl. pag. 500.

Dupin, Ecclesiastical Library, p. 500.

(printed under page 718)

(34) ‹anchor: erga Cyprianum se præbet› · call in col 1333

Tillemont. Hist. Eccl. tom. IV, art. 49, p. 155. Baillet. In Vitis Sanctorum, t. III, ad diem 16 Sept.

Tillemont, Ecclesiastical History, vol. IV, article 49, p. 155. Baillet, in the Lives of the Saints, vol. III, under 16 September.

(printed under page 718)

(35) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1333)

P. Gervas in Vita S. Cypr., pag. 436.

Father Gervaise, in the Life of St Cyprian, p. 436.

(printed under page 718)

(36) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1333)

Tillemont. Hist. Eccl. tom. IV, pag. 150; idem P. Gervasius in Vita S. Cypr., pag. 413; Lombert. in laud. Præfat. pag. 72; Baillet ad diem 16 Septembr. in loco citato.

Tillemont, Ecclesiastical History, vol. IV, p. 150; likewise Father Gervaise, in the Life of St Cyprian, p. 413; Lombert, in the cited preface, p. 72; Baillet, under 16 September, in the place cited.

(printed under page 718)

(47) [so printed; in sequence, (37)] ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1334)

Tillemont ibid. pag. 155.

Tillemont, same work, p. 155.

(printed under page 718)

(38) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1334)

Fleuriacus, Hist. Eccl. tom. II, lib. VII p. 283. Idem scribunt Tillemontius, Hist. Eccl. tom. IV, art. 49; Lombertus, in laud. Præfat. pag. 72; P. Gervasius in Vita S. Cypr. pag. 462; Baillet in Vitis Sanctor. ad diem 2 Augusti, pag. 111.

Fleury, Ecclesiastical History, vol. II, book VII, p. 283. The same is written by Tillemont, Ecclesiastical History, vol. IV, article 49; Lombert, in the cited preface, p. 72; Father Gervaise, in the Life of St Cyprian, p. 462; Baillet, in the Lives of the Saints, under 2 August, p. 111.

(printed under page 718)

(39) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1334)

P. Gervasius, in Vita S. Cypr. pag. 438.

Father Gervaise, in the Life of St Cyprian, p. 438.

(printed under page 718)

(40) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1334)

P. Gervasius, in Vita S. Cypr. pag. 452.

Father Gervaise, in the Life of St Cyprian, p. 452.

(printed under page 718)

(41) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1334)

Idem pag. 459.

The same, p. 459.

(printed under page 718)

(42) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1334)

Lombert. in laud. Præfat. pag. 75. Lombertum exscribit P. Gervasius in Vita S. Cypr. pag. 436.

Lombert, in the cited preface, p. 75. Father Gervaise copies Lombert in the Life of St Cyprian, p. 436.

(printed under page 718)

(43) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1334)

P. Gervasius id tradit et evincere conatur in Vita S. Cypriani pag. 465 et 466. Stephanum pariter errores insimulant, Launoius, epist. 15, ad Bevilaq. et Dupin. Bibliot. Eccl. tom. I, pag. 240, etc.

Father Gervaise states this and tries to prove it in the Life of St Cyprian, pp. 465 and 466. Launoy, letter 15, to Bevilacqua, and Dupin, Ecclesiastical Library, vol. I, p. 240 etc., likewise charge Stephen with errors.

(printed under page 718)

(44) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1334)

Tillemont. Hist. Eccl. tom. IV, pag. 31.

Tillemont, Ecclesiastical History, vol. IV, p. 31.

(printed under page 718)

Page

running head: 1333 PARS II. — RECENTIORU
marginal letters: A (in col. 1334); B (in col. 1334); C (in col. 1334); D (in col. 1334)
old-edition numerals: 1282 after Cyprianum
other: editors' matter: rum quos... et (entire column); word split from preceding column: rum (virorum)

PL 3:1334

damnat, ipsum vocat pseudochristum, speudoapostolum, dolosum et perfidum, Cypriani tegatos contumeliosissime tractat, ipsis pacem communionem, hospitalitatem, victum non negavit solum, sed negari ab omnibus praecepit. Stephanus zelum praesefert quidem, sed ad omnia promiscue devastanda unice idoneum: hic Stephani zelus imperatorem movit ad Ecclesiam crudeliter persequendam. Stephanus quam plures Ecclesias tyrannice opprimebat, nullam Ecclesiae unitatis rationem habet, quam scindere flocci facit. Stephanus non unum vel duos duntaxat, sed tres errores fidei catholicae adversos docuit in suo rescripto ad Cyprianum.

condemns him; he calls him a false Christ, a false apostle, deceitful and perfidious; he treats the legates of Cyprian most contumeliously; he not only denied them peace, communion, hospitality, and food, but commanded them to be denied by all. Stephen displays zeal indeed, yet one uniquely suited for devastating all things indiscriminately: this zeal of Stephen moved the emperor to persecute the Church cruelly. Stephen tyrannically oppressed very many Churches; he has no regard for the unity of the Church, which he thinks it a trifle to rend asunder. Stephen taught not one or two only, but three errors contrary to the Catholic faith in his rescript to Cyprian.

Integerrimam Stephami vitam tot conviciis dilacerasse, tot onerasse criminibus haud satis habuerunt neoterici, sanctam et ipsius mortem aggrediuntur, gloriosi martyrii palmam, imo sanctitatem ipsam Stephano eripere tentant; modo significant acta martyrii S. Stephani satis authentica non esse, ut in historia fidem mereri debeant; modo contendunt aliquem dubitandi locum esse, utrum Stephanus vere martyr exstiterit; hic subjiciunt S. Augustino ac Vincentio Lirinensi perspectum non fuisse, quod Stephanus martyr exstiterit; illic tradunt jure credi posse Stephanum in carcere vel alio modo minus illustri obiisse, non vero per judicis sententiam ac persecutorum manu quod solum pro vero perfectoque martyrio tunc temporis habebatur. At qualecunque tandem martyrium Stephanus pertulerit, illud saltem pro Christi nominis confessione passus est? Nequaquam juxta Dupinium: illud, inquit, passus est quia in coemeterio inventus est contra Valeriani imperatoris jussum qui coemeteria Christianis frequentari sub poena mortis edicto prohibuerat. At demum pro Christi nominis confessione Stephanus non interierit, vere martyr non exstiterit, indubia saltem erit illius sanctitas? Imo maxime dubia ac nullo nixa fundamento, si Lomberti valeant effata: quae enim Stephanus contra Cyprianum gessit nec martyrio juxta Lombertum

Having torn to pieces the most upright life of Stephen with so many revilings, and loaded it with so many crimes, the moderns did not count it enough: they attack his holy death also, and attempt to snatch away from Stephen the palm of a glorious martyrdom, nay, holiness itself; now they signify that the acts of the martyrdom of St. Stephen are not sufficiently authentic to deserve credit in history; now they contend that there is some room for doubting whether Stephen was truly a martyr; here they suggest that it was not known to St. Augustine and Vincent of Lérins that Stephen was a martyr; there they hand down that it can rightfully be believed that Stephen died in prison or in some other less illustrious manner, and not by the sentence of the judge and the hand of the persecutors, which alone at that time was accounted a true and perfect martyrdom. Yet whatsoever martyrdom Stephen at length endured, did he at least suffer it for the confession of the name of Christ? By no means, according to Dupin: he suffered it, says he, because he was found in a cemetery contrary to the command of the Emperor Valerian, who by an edict had forbidden cemeteries to be frequented by Christians under pain of death. Yet finally, though Stephen did not perish for the confession of the name of Christ, and was not truly a martyr, will his holiness at least be undoubted? Nay, most doubtful and resting upon no foundation, if the utterances of Lombert avail: for the things which Stephen did against Cyprian could not according to Lombert

Editors' notes and page, col. 1334

Footnotes

(45) ‹anchor: martyr exstiterit› · call in col 1334

Ibid.

Same place.

(printed under page 718)

(46) ‹anchor: Stephanus martyr exstiterit› · call in col 1334

Ibid.

Same place.

(printed under page 718)

(47) ‹anchor: martyrio tunc temporis habebatur› · call in col 1334

Ibid.

Same place.

(printed under page 718)

(48) ‹anchor: edicto prohibuerat› · call in col 1334

Bibl. Eccl. tom. I, pag. 503.

Ecclesiastical Library, vol. I, p. 503.

(printed under page 718)

Page

running head: RECENTIORUM EXCURSUS. 1334
marginal letters: A damnat (35), ipsum; B rasse, tot onerasse; C sione passus est?; D (in footnote block)
old-edition numerals: 1283 before enim
other: editors' matter: damnat, ipsum... Lom- (entire column); word split at end of column: Lom-
other: the word Lombertum was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1335
other (QA Q1a 2026-10-25): the English now ends with "Lombert" whole here; col 1335's English still opens with the tail "-bert", which should be dropped there (not written by this pass)
other (QA Q1a 2026-10-25): footnotes (35)–(44), whose calls stand in this column (damnat, perfidum, tegatos tractat, praecepit, idoneum, persequendam, opprimebat, facit, Cyprianum, debeant), are filed in n1333 with "call not visible"; their calls are visible here
other (QA Q1a 2026-10-25): misprint as printed, set back: Stephami (for Stephani), "Integerrimam Stephami vitam"
other (QA Q3 2026-10-25): misprint as printed, kept: speudoapostolum (for pseudoapostolum), "speudo-apostolum"
other (QA Q3 2026-10-25): misprint as printed, kept: tegatos (for legatos), "Cypriani tegatos"
other (QA Q3 2026-10-25): UNSURE at this scan's resolution: "pseudochristum" may be printed "paeudochristum"; "effata" may be printed "etfata" (or a broken ff); "indubia" may be printed "iudubia" (turned n); left as set, check on a higher-resolution render
other (QA Q3 2026-10-25): the foot of page 718 (right) opens with "(47) Tillemont ibid. pag. 155.", the continuation of note (37) with its numeral misprinted; it belongs with n1333's notes

PL 3:1335

expiari poterant, nisi Stephanus ante mortem pacem cum Cypriano, aliisque episcopis fecisset, ac charitatis et unitatis nexus, quos ipse disruperat cum ipsis astrinxisset. En igitur totum Stephani sanctitatis fundamentum in ipsius cum Cypriano reconciliatione constitutum, in hac, inquam reconciliatione, cujus nec apud veteres nec apud recentes aliquod exstat vestigium, ideoque maxime dubia, ne plus dicam et incerta; tam igitur suspecta, dubiaque nobis erit Stephani sanctitas, quam hujusmodi a Lomberto praeformata Stephani cum Cypriano caeterisque reconciliatio, a qua nimirum tota pendet Stephani sanctitas, et sine qua nec ipsum Stephano profuisset martyrium.

be expiated even by martyrdom, unless Stephen before his death had made peace with Cyprian and the other bishops, and had bound fast with them the bonds of charity and unity which he himself had broken asunder. Behold therefore the whole foundation of the holiness of Stephen set in his reconciliation with Cyprian—in this reconciliation, I say, of which no trace exists either among the ancients or among recent writers, and which is therefore most doubtful, not to say more, and uncertain; just so suspected and doubtful to us therefore will be the holiness of Stephen as is a reconciliation of Stephen with Cyprian and the rest of this sort fashioned beforehand by Lombert, whereon namely the whole holiness of Stephen hangs, and without which not even martyrdom itself would have profited Stephen.

His mediis tam portentosis novam huic argumento vim, novumque splendorem indere susceperunt, quibus roboratum, invictum ac evidens illud asserere ac ubique praedicare non dubitant. Utris vero gloriosius exstiterit, an Lutheranis et Calvinianis illud argumentum excogitasse, an neotericis nostris dirutum illud tam praeclare restaurasse, judex ille sit, qui neutrius gloriae invideat; quanquam fatendum ingenue sit S. Stephanum Romanum pontificem a Lutheranorum et Calvinistarum nemine tam male tractatum fuisse, quam a nonnullis et neotericis scriptoribus.

By these means so monstrous they have undertaken to impart a new force and a new splendour to this argument, strengthened wherewith, they do not hesitate to assert and proclaim everywhere that it is invincible and evident. Now to which of the two it has been more glorious, whether to the Lutherans and Calvinists to have devised that argument, or to our moderns to have so nobly restored it when demolished, let him be judge who envies the glory of neither; although it must be frankly confessed that St. Stephen, the Roman pontiff, was treated so ill by no one of the Lutherans and Calvinists as by some of the modern writers.

Verum ultra metas progressi sunt, qui nobilissimo et quidem primaevae antiquitatis Ecclesiae doctori, qualis fuit Cyprianus, ignotum penitus fuisse quod Petri successoribus asseritur fidei indeficientis privilegium Catholicis suadere per fas etiam et nefas susceperant. Quid amplius igitur neoterici, ut nonnullos hac in re fallerent incautos? Probe conscii quanto apud Catholicos in pretio haberentur Gallorum theologorum ac Parisiensium doctorum opiniones, huc et illuc spargere coeperunt hujusmodi argumentum sapientissimis illis sacrae theologiae magistris validissimum ad impetendam Romani Pontificis inerrantiam visum fuisse. Sic quod rei deerat tanto nomine ac titulo compensandum esse judicarunt. Fatenda res est, Neotericorum votis non parum successit artificium. Exteri quamplures, quibus saepe non vacat ac frequentius liberum non est tot Galliae doctorum volumina perlegere, aliorum ex suo candorem dimetientes, rem magna fidentia testantibus bona fide crediderunt, atque exinde Galliae theologos tanquam hujusce argumenti patronos habentes obscuratam ac imminutam in recentioribus, quae veteres Galliae doctores commendabat judicii gravitatem ac maturitatem dolere atque deplorare visi sunt, atque videntur. E Gallia etiam non pauci in Parisiensium doctorum

Yet they have advanced beyond bounds who had undertaken through right and wrong to persuade Catholics that the privilege of unfailing faith which is asserted for the successors of Peter was altogether unknown to a most noble doctor of the Church, and indeed of primeval antiquity, such as Cyprian was. What further therefore did the moderns do, in order to deceive some unwary persons in this matter? Being well aware in how great esteem the opinions of the theologians of France and the doctors of Paris were held among Catholics, they began to scatter here and there that an argument of this sort had seemed to those most wise masters of sacred theology most valid for assailing the inerrancy of the Roman Pontiff. Thus they judged that what was lacking to the thing itself must be compensated by so great a name and title. The fact must be confessed: the artifice succeeded not a little according to the wishes of the moderns. Very many foreigners, who often have no leisure and more frequently are not free to read through so many volumes of the doctors of France, measuring the candour of others by their own, in good faith believed those who testified the matter with great confidence, and thence accounting the theologians of France as patrons of this argument, have seemed and still seem to grieve and deplore that the gravity and maturity of judgement which commended the ancient doctors of France has been obscured and diminished in the more recent ones. From France also not a few, not sufficiently versed in the writings of the doctors of Paris,

Editors' notes and page, col. 1335

Footnotes

(49) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1335)

Lomb. in laud. Præfat. pag. 78.

Lombert, in the cited preface, p. 78.

(printed under page 719)

Page

running head: 1335 DE HAERETICORUM BA
marginal letters: A (in col. 1336); B (in col. 1336); C (in col. 1336); D (in col. 1336)
old-edition numerals: 1284 before do-
other: editors' matter: bertum expiari... doctorum (entire column); word split from preceding column: bertum (Lombertum)

PL 3:1336

scriptis non satis versati neotericis hac in re faciliores aures pariter accommodarunt, unde tanta magistrorum suorum, a quibus recedere nefas ducitur, auctoritate abrepti, istud argumentum ad impetendam inerrantiam Pontificiam efficacissimum et ipsi sine ulteriori inquisitione dixere, atque contendere saepius audiuntur.

have equally lent too easy ears to the moderns in this matter; whence, carried away by so great an authority of their masters, from whom it is accounted a wicked thing to depart, they themselves also without further inquiry have said that that argument is most efficacious for assailing Pontifical inerrancy, and are quite often heard to contend so.

Novissimus iste fuit caeterisque felicior neotericorum ausus, ut argumento praedilecto vires aliquas, quas per sese ipsum non habebat impertirentur. Temerarium adeo incoeptum ferre non potuimus, nempe quo germana celeberrimorum scriptorum doctrina adeo depravaretur, ut adversa penitus ipsis affingeretur. Periniquo passus sum animo Parisienses doctores eo usque denigratum iri, ut vetulam Lutheranorum cantilenam a Catholicis omnibus irrisam ac contemptissimam placere ipsis, probari ac recantari diceretur. Dolebamus eam Galliae theologis invidiam conflari, quae ipsos tanquam filios a patribus degeneres, Patrum sapientia ac judicii maturitate destitutos exteris exhiberet, ac proinde querimonias exterorum et exprobrationes in ipsos concitaret. Permoleste cernebamus tot juniores Sorbonnae baccalaureos, ementita suorum magistrorum auctoritate deceptos, bona fide credere, Cyprianum Pontificiae infaillibilitati repugnasse, quod avitum et innatum ad tuenda Sedis Apostolicae jura ipsorum ardorem minuebat non parum ac remittebat.

That was the latest and more successful daring of the moderns beyond the rest, in order that some strength might be imparted to their darling argument which it had not of itself. So rash an undertaking we could not bear, namely whereby the genuine doctrine of the most celebrated writers was so depraved that the utter opposite was fastened upon them. With a very indignant mind I suffered that the doctors of Paris should be blackened to such a point that the old wives' song of the Lutherans, laughed at and most despised by all Catholics, should be said to please them, to be approved, and to be sung over again. We grieved that that odium was stirred up against the theologians of France, which exhibited them to foreigners as sons degenerate from their fathers, destitute of the wisdom and maturity of judgement of their Fathers, and accordingly stirred up the complaints and reproaches of foreigners against them. With great annoyance we perceived that so many younger bachelors of the Sorbonne, deceived by the forged authority of their masters, believed in good faith that Cyprian had opposed Pontifical infallibility, which diminished and slackened not a little their ancestral and innate ardour for defending the rights of the Apostolic See.

Ut itaque nostro pro asserendis ac magis magisque firmandis sacris Apostolicae Sedis juribus ac divinis privilegiis studio nostraeque de Galliae theologis, quo meliori modo possumus, benemerendi voluntati faceremus satis, germanam Galliae theologorum hac in parte sententiam pendere atque a novissima impostura vindicare suscepimus. Quid ergo? An non Galliae doctores Cypriani factum ad impetendam Romani Pontificis inerrantiam idoneum aptumque dijudicant? Imo ineptissimum ac futilissimum illud esse demonstrant. Easdem doctissimi Galliae theologi, quas caeteri catholici doctores ad exsufflandum et profligandum, quo ex Cypriano Lutherani primum et Calviniani, deinde neoterici in supremam et immotam Romani Pontificis auctoritatem arietant argumentum, responsiones afferunt atque suppeditant: hae vero tam solidae, tam decretoriae sunt ut magis esse non possint. Ita se habent gravissimi viri, quidquid in contrarium adducant ac fabulentur neoterici, atque illud est quod probandum aggredimur ac difficiliori cuicunque suadere confidimus.

In order therefore that we might satisfy our zeal for asserting and confirming more and more the sacred rights and divine privileges of the Apostolic See, and our good will to deserve well, in the best way we can, of the theologians of France, we have undertaken to weigh the genuine opinion of the theologians of France in this matter and to vindicate it from the latest imposture. What therefore? Do not the doctors of France judge the deed of Cyprian suitable and apt for assailing the inerrancy of the Roman Pontiff? Nay, they demonstrate that it is most inept and most futile. The most learned theologians of France bring forward and supply the same answers as the rest of the Catholic doctors for blowing away and overthrowing the argument from Cyprian wherewith first the Lutherans and Calvinists, and next the moderns batter against the supreme and unshaken authority of the Roman Pontiff: and these answers are so solid, so decisive, that they could not be more so. Thus do those most weighty men hold, whatsoever the moderns adduce and fable to the contrary; and that is what we undertake to prove and are confident of persuading even the most hard to please.

Editors' notes and page, col. 1336

Page

running head: TICORUM BAPTISMATE. 1336
marginal letters: A scriptis non satis; B tulam Lutheranorum cantilenam; C gisque firmandis sacris; D atque suppeditant: hae
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: scriptis non... confidimus. (entire column)

PL 3:1337

Compendiosa Stephani sanctissimi Martyris ac Romani Pontificis Vita a veterum monumentis excerpta.

A Short Life of Stephen, Most Holy Martyr and Roman Pontiff, Drawn from the Records of the Ancients.

Stephanus natione Romanus ex patre Julio, antequam ad supremum Ecclesiae verticem attolleretur in clerum Romanum cooptatus Cornelii primo, deinde Lucit Romanorum Pontificum fuit archidiaconus, in quo officio talem se praebuit Cornelio, ut ipsum prae omnibus dignum censuerit, cui tutius « omnia Ecclesiae bona ante suam passionem traderentur. » Lucio vero ita se probavit, ut ipsum ex omnibus unum ad sustinendam difficillimis temporibus nutantis Ecclesiae molem deligeret: « Hic enim, inquit Anastasius, potestatem dedit omnis Ecclesiae Stephano archidiacono suo dum ad passionem pergeret; vel juxta Eusebium, moriens episcopale officium Stephano dereliquit. »

Stephen, a Roman by nation, son of Julius, before he was raised to the supreme summit of the Church, was co-opted into the Roman clergy and was archdeacon first of Cornelius, then of Lucius, Roman Pontiffs; in which office he showed himself such to Cornelius that Cornelius judged him worthy above all, as the one to whom "all the goods of the Church" might more safely "be handed over before his passion." To Lucius he so commended himself that Lucius chose him alone out of all to bear, in most difficult times, the weight of the tottering Church: "For he," says Anastasius, "gave power over the whole Church to Stephen his archdeacon while he was going to his passion"; or, according to Eusebius, "dying, he left the episcopal office to Stephen."

Lucio, gloriosa morte defuncto, successit Stephanus. Ecclesia a persecutionibus respirante, ac pacem sub Valeriano ad tempus obtinente, majorem sanctus pastor agendi libertatem nactus ad remotissimas quoque per orbem Ecclesias sollicitudinem vertit: « Omnibus Syriarum cum Arabia provinciis non semel, sed identidem necessaria suppeditans; » quorum autem corporibus tanta charitate ac liberalitate sanctus Pontifex subveniebat, animos etiam benignis ac salubribus scriptis solari, et ad pietatem excitare studebat, teste Dionysio, citatis modo verbis haec subdente: « et quibus litteras nunc scripsistis. »

When Lucius had died a glorious death, Stephen succeeded him. As the Church drew breath from persecutions and for a time enjoyed peace under Valerian, the holy shepherd, having gained a greater freedom of action, turned his solicitude even to the most remote Churches throughout the world: "supplying necessities to all the provinces of the Syrias together with Arabia, not once but again and again"; and those whose bodies the holy Pontiff relieved with such charity and liberality, he was eager also to console in their souls with kind and wholesome writings and to stir up to piety, as Dionysius witnesses, who adds these words to those just quoted: "and to whom you have now written letters."

Marcianum Arelatensem in Gallia episcopum Novatiano plurimum studere non sine Ecclesiae detrimento Stephano significavit una cum caeteris provinciae episcopis Faustinus Lugdunensis antistes. Stephanum autem pro rei gravitate mature procedentem, ac in excommunicandis et deponendis episcopis non festinantem per epistolam adit a Gallis incitatus Cyprianus, ipsum interpellans « ut in provinciam et ad plebem Arelate consistentem litteras dirigeret et quidem plenissimas, quibus abstento Marciano alium in locum ejus substitueret; » quare autem vellet tam severa et gravi censura in Marcianum animadverti, disertius exponit sub epistolae finem, quod nimirum vindicandus esset Romanorum Pontificum honor, a quorum ille « de recipientis lapsis » decretis pertinaciter dissentiebat: « Servandus est enim, inquit, Antecessorum nostrorum beatorum martyrum Cornelii et Lucii honor gloriosus, quorum memoriam

Faustinus, bishop of Lyons, together with the other bishops of the province, informed Stephen that Marcian, bishop of Arles in Gaul, was greatly devoted to Novatian, not without harm to the Church. Stephen, however, proceeding with deliberation as befitted the gravity of the matter, and not hasty in excommunicating and deposing bishops, was approached by letter by Cyprian, at the urging of the Gauls, who pressed him "to direct letters, and indeed very full ones, into the province and to the people dwelling at Arles, by which, Marcian being excommunicated, he might put another in his place"; and why he wished so severe and grave a censure to be passed upon Marcian he sets out more explicitly towards the end of the letter: namely, that the honour of the Roman Pontiffs had to be vindicated, from whose decrees "on receiving the lapsed" that man obstinately dissented: "For the glorious honour," he says, "of our predecessors the blessed martyrs Cornelius and Lucius must be preserved, whose memory

Editors' notes and page, col. 1337

Footnotes

(50) ‹anchor: ex patre Julio› · call in col 1337

Catalogus Pontificum sæculo sexto conscriptus ab Henschenio vulgatus tom. I Aprilis, in diatriba præliminari. Anastasius Bibliothecarius in Vita S. Stephani.

The Catalogue of the Pontiffs written in the sixth century, published by Henschen in the first volume for April [of the Acta Sanctorum], in the preliminary dissertation. Anastasius the Librarian, in the Life of St Stephen.

(printed under page 720)

(51) ‹anchor: fuit archidiaconus› · call in col 1337

Idem Anastasius in Vitis SS. Cornelii et Lucii edit. Rom., 1718.

The same Anastasius, in the Lives of Saints Cornelius and Lucius, Rome edition, 1718.

(printed under page 720)

(52) ‹anchor: ante suam passionem traderentur› · call in col 1337

In Vita S. Cornelii.

In the Life of St Cornelius.

(printed under page 720)

(53) ‹anchor: dum ad passionem pergeret› · call in col 1337

In Vita S. Lucii.

In the Life of St Lucius.

(printed under page 720)

(54) ‹anchor: vel juxta Eusebium› · call in col 1337

Histor. Eccles., lib. VII, cap. 2, edit. Vales. Paris., 1678.

Ecclesiastical History, book VII, chapter 2, Valois's edition, Paris, 1678.

(printed under page 720)

(55) ‹anchor: successit Stephanus› · call in col 1337 (note printed in cols 1337–1338)

Id post Cyprianum, Eusebium, Optatum Milev., Augustinum, Prosperum, Nicephorum, etc. omnes agnoscunt.

This is acknowledged by all, following Cyprian, Eusebius, Optatus of Milevis, Augustine, Prosper, Nicephorus, etc.

(printed under page 720)

(56) ‹anchor: non semel, sed identidem necessaria suppeditans› · call in col 1337

Dionysius Alexand. apud Eusebium. lib. VII, cap. 5.

Dionysius of Alexandria, in Eusebius, book VII, chapter 5.

(printed under page 720)

(57) ‹anchor: Lugdunensis antistes› · call in col 1337

S. Cyprianus, Epist. 67, ad S. Stephanum supra col. 989.

St Cyprian, Letter 67, to St Stephen, above, col. 989.

(printed under page 720)

(58) ‹anchor: in locum ejus substitueret› · call in col 1337

Cyprianus, ibid.

Cyprian, same place.

(printed under page 720)

(59) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1338)

Ibidem.

Same place.

(printed under page 720)

(60) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1338)

Annal. tom. III, pag. 432, edit. Paris. ; 1672.

Annals, vol. III, p. 432, Paris edition, 1672.

(printed under page 720)

Page

running head: 1337 PARS II. — RECENTIORU
marginal letters: A (in col. 1338); B (in col. 1338); C (in col. 1338); D (in col. 1338)
old-edition numerals: 1285 after retur
other: two full-width lines across cols. 1337-1338 not set: Compendiosa Stephani sanctissimi Martyris ac Romani Pontificis Vita a veterum / monumentis excerpta.; editors' matter: Stephanus natione... memoriam (entire column)
running head: 1337 PARS II. — RECENTIORUM EXCURSUS. 1338
marginal letters: A ‹antequam ad supremum Ecclesiae verticem› (A stands between the columns at the first text line); B ‹Lucio, gloriosa morte defuncto, successit Stepha-›; C ‹provinciae episcopis Faustinus Lugdunensis antis-›; D ‹nelii et Lucii honor gloriosus, quorum memoriam›
old-edition numerals: 1285 after ‹attolleretur›
Q2a: calls (50)–(55) are printed in the column text (after Julio, archidiaconus, traderentur, pergeret, Eusebium, Stephanus); anchors set.

PL 3:1338

cum nos honoremus, multo magis tu, fratrer charissime, honorificare et servare gravitate et auctoritate tua debes, qui vicarius et successor eorum factus es. Illi enim pleni Spiritu Dei et in glorioso martyrio constituti dandam esse lapsis pacem censuerunt. »

since we honour it, much more ought you, dearest brother, to honour and preserve by your weight and authority, you who have been made their vicar and successor. For they, full of the Spirit of God and set in a glorious martyrdom, judged that peace should be given to the lapsed."

Cyprianus interea adeo non dubitabat, quin Stephanus, re ad tantam lucem jam provecta, ipsius consilio et hortatu litteras ad provinciam et plebem Arelatensem mitteret, quibus et Marcianum abstineri, et alium episcopum in ejus locum substitui praeciperet, ut et quis fuerit substitutus sibi significari roget his verbis: « Significata plane nobis qui in locum Marciani Arelate fuerit substitutus, ut sciamus ad quem fratres nostros dirigere, et cui scribere debeamus. » Dejectum autem e sede tunc Marcianum a Stephano fuisse tota silet antiquitas; at illud indicio esse potest, quod nomen ejus in antiquis Arelatensis Ecclesiae diptychis a Mabillonio editis non legatur.

Cyprian meanwhile so little doubted that Stephen, the matter having now been brought into such clear light, would on his counsel and urging send letters to the province and people of Arles, ordering both that Marcian be excommunicated and that another bishop be put in his place, that he even asks to be informed who had been substituted, in these words: "Make known to us plainly who has been substituted at Arles in the place of Marcian, so that we may know to whom we should direct our brethren and to whom we ought to write." That Marcian was then cast down from his see by Stephen the whole of antiquity is silent; but this can be an indication of it, that his name is not read in the ancient diptychs of the Church of Arles edited by Mabillon.

Eodem circiter, ut creditur, tempore praeclarum auctoritatis ac suae clementiae specimen dedit piissimus Pontifex in causa Basilidis Legionis et Asturicae in Hispaniis episcopi. Hic cum ob varia crimina quorum accusabatur, ab episcopatu a suis depulsus esset, ejusque loco Sabinus fuisset suffectus, sese Romam ad Stephanum contulit, a quo ut in suam sedem restitueretur obtinuit. Cyprianus, cum Basilidem omnium, quorum accusabatur criminum reum existimaret, et aliunde Stephani aequitas adeo sibi nota esset, ut ipsum facinoroso patrocinari voluisse nullatenus suspicaretur, Stephanum a Basilide in hoc negotio fuisse deceptum censuit, quod Stephano accidere potuisse contendit ut pote longe ab Hispania posito et gestae rei ac tacitae veritatis ignaro.

At about the same time, as is believed, the most pious Pontiff gave a splendid example of his authority and of his clemency in the case of Basilides, bishop of León and Astorga in Spain. When he had been driven from the episcopate by his own people for various crimes of which he was accused, and Sabinus had been put in his place, he betook himself to Rome to Stephen, from whom he obtained that he be restored to his see. Cyprian, since he held Basilides guilty of all the crimes of which he was accused, and on the other hand Stephen's fairness was so well known to him that he in no way suspected him of having wished to patronize a criminal, judged that Stephen had been deceived by Basilides in this business; which he contends could have happened to Stephen, as being placed far from Spain and ignorant of the deed done and of the truth kept silent.

Si revera Stephanus in hac re, ut putavit Cyprianus, circumveniri se passus est, non propterea gravis, aut etiam levis negligentiae illico culpandus, cum experientia constet vel diligentissimo nonnunquam cautissimoque obrepi solere; maxime si, ut Stephanus, ea plenus est charitate quae omnia credens nec cogitans malum, reis magis quam actoribus indulgere studet; sed nescio an Cyprianus potius, quam Stephanus in hoc negotio fuerit deceptus; quidquid enim Cyprianus in hac epistola de Basilidis criminibus statuit, statuit parte altera

If Stephen really let himself be circumvented in this matter, as Cyprian thought, he is not on that account at once to be blamed for grave or even slight negligence, since experience shows that even the most diligent and most cautious man is sometimes imposed upon; above all if, like Stephen, he is full of that charity which, believing all things and thinking no evil, is eager to be indulgent to the accused rather than to the accusers. But I do not know whether Cyprian, rather than Stephen, was deceived in this business; for whatever Cyprian determined in this letter about the crimes of Basilides, he determined it with the other party

Editors' notes and page, col. 1338

Footnotes

(59) ‹anchor: scribere debeamus› · call in col 1338

Ibidem.

Same place.

(printed under page 720)

(60) ‹anchor: a Mabillonio editis› · call in col 1338

Annal. tom. III, pag. 432, edit. Paris. ; 1672.

Annales, vol. III, p. 432, Paris edition, 1672.

(printed under page 720)

(61) ‹anchor: restitueretur obtinuit› · call in col 1338

Cyprianus in epist. 67, ad Stephanum supra.

Cyprian, Letter 67, to Stephen, above.

(printed under page 720)

(62) ‹anchor: rei ac tacitæ veritatis ignaro› · call in col 1338

Ibidem.

Same place.

(printed under page 720)

Page

running head: RECENTIORUM EXCURSUS. 1338
marginal letters: A cum nos honoremus,; B scribere debeamus (59). »; C noroso patrocinari; D Basilidis criminibus statuit,
old-edition numerals: 1286 before martyrio
other: two full-width lines across cols. 1337-1338 not set: Compendiosa Stephani sanctissimi Martyris ac Romani Pontificis Vita a veterum / monumentis excerpta.; editors' matter: cum nos... altera (entire column)
running head: 1337 PARS II. — RECENTIORUM EXCURSUS. 1338
marginal letters: A ‹cum nos honoremus, multo magis tu, fratrer cha-›; B ‹scribere debeamus. » Dejectum autem e sede›; C ‹noroso patrocinari voluisse nullatenus suspicare-›; D ‹Basilidis criminibus statuit, statuit parte altera›
old-edition numerals: 1286 after ‹glorioso›
misprints kept as printed: fratrer (for frater); Significata (for Significa)
other: the text of col 1338 ends at 'statuit parte altera'; the sentence runs on at the top of col 1339 (Q6a). The words 'omnes agnoscunt.' printed at the head of the foot apparatus under col 1338 are the end of footnote (55) from the foot of col 1337 (Id post Cyprianum ... Nicephorum, etc. omnes agnoscunt.), not text: removed from this column's source and English (Q6a); n1337's footnote (55) should be checked to carry them.

PL 3:1339

inaudita, hoc est ex sola relatione legatorum qui erant episcopis depositis (Basilidi et Martiali) substituti, et ex litteris eorum qui hos deposuerant, illos substituerant; at hi profecto in causa propria testes non erant idonei, et aeque imponere Cypriano poterant, ac Stephano Basilides. Ab Hispania longe quidem positus erat Stephanus; at Hispanis non adeo propior Cyprianus, ut quae Romam inde penetrare poterat fallacia, non potuisset etiam Carthaginem: cum maxime tam rara Carthaginenses inter et Hispanos nullo jurisdictionis vinculo colligatos, quam frequentia Hispanorum cum Romanis, quibus et civili et ecclesiastica potestate suberant, haberentur commercia; crediderim potius quod in Hispania agebatur multo melius Romae sciri ac examinari potuisse a Stephano, quam Carthagine a Cypriano.

unheard, that is, from the sole report of the legates who had been substituted for the deposed bishops (Basilides and Martialis), and from the letters of those who had deposed the latter and substituted the former; yet these men assuredly were not suitable witnesses in their own cause, and could impose upon Cyprian equally as Basilides upon Stephen. Far from Spain indeed was Stephen situated; yet Cyprian was not so much nearer to the Spaniards that a deceit which could penetrate thence to Rome could not have penetrated to Carthage also: especially since intercourse was as rare between the Carthaginians and the Spaniards, who were bound together by no bond of jurisdiction, as it was frequent between the Spaniards and the Romans, to whom they were subject by both civil and ecclesiastical power; I would rather believe that what was done in Spain could be known and examined much better at Rome by Stephen than at Carthage by Cyprian.

At fuerint, si placet, Basilidis crimina Cypriano magis, quam Stephano probata, ideone deceptus, vel incautus Stephanus, quia illum sedi suae restituit? Nullo modo. Cum enim Basilidis depositio ab Hispanis facta fuisset, non consulta sede Romana, ad quam hujusmodi causae referendae erant teste ipso Cypriano, idque ignorare non potuerit S. Stephanus, Hispanorum acta rescindere debuit, saltem quoad illi causam ordine legitimo, hoc est conscia et probante Sede Apostolica denuo instaurarent. Qui plura de hac re desiderat, consulat eminentissimum Aguirrium.

Yet let the crimes of Basilides have been proved, if you please, more to Cyprian than to Stephen: was Stephen therefore deceived or incautious because he restored him to his see? By no means. For since the deposition of Basilides had been made by the Spaniards without consulting the Roman See, to which causes of this sort had to be referred, as Cyprian himself testifies, and St. Stephen could not be ignorant of this, he ought to have rescinded the acts of the Spaniards, at least until they renewed the cause in lawful order, that is, with the knowledge and approval of the Apostolic See. He who desires more concerning this matter may consult the most eminent Aguirre.

Hispanorum vix sedaverat, aut sedare tentaverat turbas religiosus Pontifex, cum graviores Africanorum et Orientalium compescere cogitur et pro sua quae limites non agnoscebat, pastorali sollicitudine illos ab errore revocare nititur. Cum enim Cyprianus postposita antiqua et universali, quam ubique intuebatur Ecclesiae consuetudine, subintroductam ab Agrippino praedecessore suo de rebaptizandis ab haereticis baptizatis novitatem sequi et amplecti maluisset, ad hanc stabiliendam ac dilatandam duas Carthagine coegit synodos, in quibus statuit una cum caeteris coepiscopis congregatis baptismum extra Ecclesiam susceptum in ea repetendum esse. Res haec magni ponderis erat, et ad sacerdotalem auctoritatem et ad Ecclesiae catholicae unitatem ac dignitatem, proprius pertinebat, quam ut inconsulto Rom. Pontifice exsecutioni demandaretur, ideoque de hoc negotio « Stephano maxime scribendum esse ac cum ipso conferendum » merito judicarunt episcopi concilii Carthaginensis. Synodicam igitur ad Stephanum dirigunt epistolam, in qua ipsum rei gestae certiorem

Scarcely had the religious Pontiff quieted, or attempted to quiet, the disturbances of the Spaniards, when he is compelled to restrain the graver ones of the Africans and the Easterns, and according to his pastoral solicitude, which knew no limits, strives to recall them from error. For when Cyprian, setting aside the ancient and universal custom of the Church which he beheld everywhere, had preferred to follow and embrace the novelty privily brought in by his predecessor Agrippinus concerning rebaptizing those baptized by heretics, in order to establish and spread this he assembled two synods at Carthage, wherein he determined together with the rest of his fellow-bishops assembled that baptism received outside the Church must be repeated in her. This matter was of great weight, and pertained more closely both to priestly authority and to the unity and dignity of the Catholic Church than that it should be committed to execution without consulting the Roman Pontiff; and therefore concerning this business the bishops of the Council of Carthage deservedly judged "that they ought above all to write to Stephen and confer with him." They direct therefore a synodical letter to Stephen, wherein they inform him of the thing

Editors' notes and page, col. 1339

Footnotes

(63) ‹anchor: teste ipso Cypriano› · call in col 1339

In epist. 55, ad Cornelium et 68 ad Stephanum supra.

In Letter 55, to Cornelius, and Letter 68, to Stephen, above.

(printed under page 721)

(64) ‹anchor: eminentissimum Aguirrium› · call in col 1339

Concil. Hispan., tom. I, dissert. 7 et 14.

Councils of Spain, vol. I, dissertations 7 and 14.

(printed under page 721)

(65) ‹anchor: intuebatur Ecclesiæ consuetudine› · call in col 1339

S. Augustinus de Bapt. contra Donat., lib. II, cap. 8, edit. Benedictin. Paris., 1679.

St Augustine, On Baptism, against the Donatists, book II, chapter 8, Benedictine edition, Paris, 1679.

(printed under page 721)

(66) ‹anchor: amplecti maluisset› · call in col 1339

Augustinus ibid.

Augustine, same place.

(printed under page 721)

(67) ‹anchor: repetendum esse› · call in col 1339

Cyprianus epist. 70, ad episcopos Numidiæ, et 72, ad Stephanum supra.

Cyprian, Letter 70, to the bishops of Numidia, and Letter 72, to Stephen, above.

(printed under page 721)

(68) ‹anchor: episcopi concilii Carthaginensis› · call in col 1339

Epist. synod. 72, ad Stephanum, apud Cyprianum.

Synodal Letter 72, to Stephen, among Cyprian's letters.

(printed under page 721)

(69) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1340)

Ibid.

Same place.

(printed under page 721)

Page

running head: 1339 DE HAERETICORUM BA
marginal letters: A (in col. 1340); B (in col. 1340); C (in col. 1340); D (in col. 1340)
old-edition numerals: 1287 after agebatur
other: editors' matter: inaudita, hoc... certio- (entire column); word split at end of column: certio-
other: the word certiorem was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1340

PL 3:1340

faciunt, et commendata Stephani « gravitate, sapientia nec non suae religionis ac fidei veritate » ipsi significant se nullatenus dubitare, sed « credere ipsi placitura quae et religiosa pariter et vera forent; » qualia nempe esse putabant, quae in causa baptismi haereticorum statuerant.

done, and after commending Stephen's "gravity, wisdom, as well as the truth of his religion and faith," they signify to him that they in no way doubt, but "believe that those things will please him which are equally religious and true"; such namely as they thought the things were which they had determined in the cause of the baptism of heretics.

Sanctus Pontifex ubi tantos non solum in Oriente, quod jam resciverat, sed et in Africa, tamque citatos ad proscribendam apostolicam traditionem agitari motus cognovit, idque a praesulibus eximia sanctitatis doctrinaeque fama pollentibus, perspexit continuo quo spectabiliores erant episcopi qui Ecclesiae traditionem convellere nitebantur, eo gravius Ecclesiae imminere periculum, tantique mali labem, qua magnam Africae, nec non Ciliciae, atque Cappadociae partem jam infecerat, quaeve in finitimas pervadere non desistebat provincias, brevi Africam totam, totumque Orientem fore perdituram, ideoque necessarium esse providus intellexit non qualecunque, sed efficax juxta promptissimumque tanto malo remedium; qua itaque in Cyprianum, aliosque episcopos auctoritate pollebat opportune utitur nulla contradicendi libidine, sed uno traditionis servandae studio: « dignum nimirum existimans si reliquos omnes tantum fidei devotione vinceret, quantum loci auctoritate superabat, » ipsique per epistolam praecipit nil esse in hoc negotio innovandum, praecipit, inquam, ut bonus pater, qui nil filiis, ubi etiam oportet, praecipere vult, quin et praecepti aequitatem afferat, modesteque exponat. Cypriano enim significat suae opinioni contrariam esse antiquam, quae vigebat, et quam Cyprianus ipse « ubique intuebatur. » Ecclesiae traditionem seu consuetudinem: quo sane argumento humanas, quibus Cyprianus, aliique nitebantur, rationes solide evertebat. Quis enim nesciat rationem omnem humanam Ecclesiae traditioni concedere debere, ac suspectam, ut mitius loquar, habendam esse rationem, quae tantae auctoritati adversatur. Hanc insuper traditionem confirmat ipso haereticorum exemplo, qui ad se venientes non rebaptizabant. Absurdam quidem hanc Stephani rationem censebat Cyprianus; verum, ut observabat non tam pridem vir eruditus, de illa longe aliter judicabunt, qui eam attentius expenderint; cum enim ab Ecclesia recesserint omnes haeretici, mirum non est eos de doctrina illius non nihil retinere, imo nullus re ipsa est, qui non aliquid ex ea retineat; cum igitur quantumvis inter se dissidentes, in aliquo cum Ecclesia consentiunt, hoc ab Ecclesia sibi traditum

When the holy Pontiff learned that movements so great and so rapid for proscribing apostolic tradition were being stirred up not only in the East, which he had already found out, but in Africa also, and that too by prelates strong in an eminent reputation of holiness and learning, he straightway perceived that the more notable the bishops were who strove to pluck up the tradition of the Church, the graver was the danger impending over the Church, and that the stain of so great an evil, wherewith it had already infected a great part of Africa, as well as of Cilicia and Cappadocia, or which did not cease to spread into the neighbouring provinces, would shortly ruin the whole of Africa and the whole East; and therefore the provident man understood that there was needed for so great an evil not any remedy whatsoever, but one equally efficacious and most prompt; the authority therefore wherewith he was strong over Cyprian and the other bishops he seasonably uses out of no lust of contradicting, but out of the sole zeal of preserving tradition: "thinking it worthy namely if he surpassed all the rest as much in devotion of faith as he excelled them in authority of place," and commands him by letter that nothing must be innovated in this business—commands him, I say, as a good father, who wishes to command nothing to his children, even when it behooves him, without also bringing forward and modestly setting forth the equity of the command. For he signifies to Cyprian that contrary to his opinion is the ancient tradition or custom of the Church which flourished, and which Cyprian himself "beheld everywhere": by which argument assuredly he solidly overthrew the human reasons whereon Cyprian and the others relied. For who is ignorant that all human reason ought to yield to the tradition of the Church, and that a reason which opposes so great an authority must be held suspected, to speak mildly? Moreover, he confirms this tradition by the very example of the heretics, who did not rebaptize those coming to them. Cyprian indeed judged this reason of Stephen absurd; yet, as a learned man observed not so long ago, those will judge far otherwise concerning it who weigh it more attentively: for since all heretics have departed from the Church, it is no wonder that they retain something of her doctrine, nay, in very deed there is no one who does not retain something from it; when therefore, however much they disagree among themselves, they agree in something with the Church, they are deservedly affirmed to have retained this as handed down to them by the Church,

Editors' notes and page, col. 1340

Footnotes

(70) ‹anchor: loci auctoritate superabat› · call in col 1340

Vincentinus Lirin. in Commonit. cap. 9.

Vincent of Lérins [printed "Vincentinus"], Commonitorium, chapter 9.

(printed under page 721)

(71) ‹anchor: ipsique per epistolam› · call in col 1340

Ibib.

Same place [printed "Ibib."].

(printed under page 721)

(72) [numeral printed defective, "( 2)"] ‹anchor: præcipit› · call in col 1340

Augustinus de Bapt. contra Donat., lib. V, c. 23.

Augustine, On Baptism, against the Donatists, book V, chapter 23.

(printed under page 721)

(73) ‹anchor: traditionem seu consuetudinem› · call in col 1340

Cyprianus, epist. 74, ad Pompeium, et sup.

Cyprian, Letter 74, to Pompeius, and above.

(73*) ‹anchor: argumento humanas› · call in col 1340 Facundus Hermian, pro defensione trium Capitul. lib. X, cap. 3, edit. P., Sirmondi Paris, 1696.

Facundus of Hermiane, In Defence of the Three Chapters, book X, chapter 3, edition of Father Sirmond, Paris, 1696.

(printed under page 721)

(74) ‹anchor: non rebaptizabant› · call in col 1340

Cyprianus, epist. 74, ad Pompeium.

Cyprian, Letter 74, to Pompeius.

(printed under page 721)

Page

running head: TICORUM BAPTISMATE. 1340
marginal letters: A rem faciunt, et; B atque Cappadociae partem; C enim significat suae; D recesserint omnes haeretici,
old-edition numerals: 1288 after partem
other: editors' matter: rem faciunt... traditum (entire column); word split from preceding column: rem (certiorem)

PL 3:1341

retinuisse, merito affirmantur, ac proinde non immerito antiquam Ecclesiae, quam Stephanus asserit consuetudinem vel ipsa haereticorum praxi confirmat; en Stephani verba, quae sola nobis supersunt Cypriano ea referente in epistola 74, ad Ponpeium.

and accordingly not undeservedly does Stephen confirm the ancient custom of the Church which he asserts even by the very practice of the heretics; behold the words of Stephen, which alone survive for us as Cyprian reports them in Letter 74, To Pompeius:

Si quis ergo a quacunque haeresi venerit ad nos nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum est, ut manus illi imponantur in poenitentiam, cum ipsi haeretici proprie alterutrum ad se venientes non baptizent sed communicent tantum. »

"If anyone therefore shall come to us from whatsoever heresy, let nothing be innovated save what has been handed down, that hands be laid upon him unto penance, since the heretics themselves do not properly baptize those coming to them from one another, but only communicate with them."

Haec Cypriano scribit Stephanus stylo, qui praeter gravitatem, sapientiam ac religionis veritatem, » quam in ipso Cyprianus commendabat nil sapiat, nisi modestiam eo laudabiliorem, quo tunc temporis episcopi in hac questione dissidentes « praesumptionis, pertinaciae et perversitatis » sese invicem insimulabantur.

These things Stephen writes to Cyprian in a style which, besides the "gravity, wisdom, and truth of religion" which Cyprian commended in him, savours of nothing save a modesty all the more laudable, the more the bishops at that time disagreeing in this question accused one another of "presumption, obstinacy, and perversity."

Tandem ne quid omittere vigilantissimus pontifex, quod Cyprianum, aliosque rebaptizantes ab exitiali errore latius in dies serpente revocare posset, ipsis « denuntiat sese ab illorum communione discessurum, » si in sua sententia persisterent; ut nimirum quos paterno praecepto, ac

Finally, lest the most vigilant pontiff should omit anything which could recall Cyprian and the other rebaptizers from a deadly error creeping more widely day by day, he "gives notice to them that he will depart from their communion" if they persist in their opinion; that namely those whom by a paternal command and

Editors' notes and page, col. 1341

Footnotes

(75) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1341)

Epist. 74, ad Sthephanum et supra.

Letter 74, to Stephen [printed "Sthephanum"], and above.

(printed under page 722)

(76) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1341)

Vide S. Cypriani epist. 71, ad Quintum ; epist. 73, ad Jubaianum. atque episcopi anonymi tractatum qui incipit Non debere, etc. apud Labbænm tom. I, Concil. pag. 770, et supra.

See St Cyprian's Letter 71, to Quintus; Letter 73, to Jubaianus; and the treatise of an anonymous bishop beginning "Non debere", etc., in Labbe [printed "Labbænm"], vol. I of the Councils, p. 770, and above.

(printed under page 722)

(77) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1341)

Dionysius Alexandr. apud Euseb., Hist. Eccl., lib. VII, cap. 5. et supra.

Dionysius of Alexandria, in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book VII, chapter 5, and above.

(printed under page 722)

(78) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in cols 1341–1342)

Inter probata veterum monumenta non recensemus Firmiliani ad Cyprianum epistolam, quæ irati animi monstra nobis exhibeat, non sancti episcopi dicta, quæ veritatem, religionem, æquitatem, modestiam, ac charitatem chistianam sapiant. Scribit quidem Firmilianus Stephanum cum Cypriano pacem rupisse, ipsumque pseudo-christum, pseudo-apostolum vocasse, ac ipsius legatis communionem ac hospitalitatem denegasse ; at hæc in Stephani litteris non leguntur. Hæc veterum nemo de Stephano vel obscure indicavit. De his apud Stephanum conquestus non est Cyprianus ipse, qui tamen de levioribus, genio commotionis indulgens. altas et amaras edidit quærelas. Hæc non attulit Augustinus pro minuenda, ut totus allaborabat, Cypriani in Stephanum irritationis culpa. Hæc mansuetudini, lenitati, et charitati quæ in Stephani vita ubique eluxere minime consona. Hæc si credenda sunt, quia ea Firmilianus effutiit, credendum jam erit Stephanum fuisse audacem, insolentem, improbum, manifeste stultum, inhumanum, schismaticum, falsum testem, omnibus hæreticis pejorem, cum Juda ipso Christi proditore comparandum ; credendum jam erit beatos apostolos Petrum et Paulum a Stephano fuisse infamatos, ac de nullo alio magis, quam de Stephano Scripturam sacram dicere : Homo animosus parit lites et vir iracundus exaggerat peccata. Credendum jam erit zelum Dei apud Judæos ignorantia cæcos ac gravissimo crimine constrictos magis inveniri, quam apud Stephanum, ac hujus animam fortasse unam non esse adeo est lubrica, mobilis et incerta. Credendum jam erit Stephanum pacem cum singulis per totum orbem episcopis vario discordiæ genere rupisse, ac merito nuncupandum pseudo-christum, pseudo apostolum, et dolosum operarium. Credendum etiam erit Romanam Ecclesiam frustra apostolorum auctoritatem prætendere, nec in ea traditiones apostolicas conservari. Credendum erit hæreticos non nisi post longam ætatem ab Apostolorum temporibus vixisse. Hæc enim omnia, ut alia omittam, Firmilianus in ea epistola profudit. Hæc hominem perhibent bile adeo agitatum et commotum, ut veritati, æquitati, religioni, ac charitati intendere non valuerit, quæ proinde totam Firmiliano ad Cyprianum scribenti fidem detrahant. Et revera quæ Stephano Firmilianus objicit tanquam pura putidaque commenta tota habuit antiquitas. Nil in Stephano contra Cyprianum agente hæc reprehendit ; imo Stephanum constantissime commendat, idque palam sæpiusque de Stephano negat, quod de ipso Firmilianus aperte affirmat ut infra ostendemus. Nec pluris apud Gallicæ etiam gentis scriptores habetur Firmiliani hac in re testimonium, quorum quidem major ac sanior pars nullam ipsi fidem concedendam esse libere pronuntiat, de quo videri possunt Natalis Alexander, in Hist. Eccles., III. Eccl. sæculi dissert. 12, art, 1, p. 687 : Erassen de Sacramentis. quæst. 3. p. 96 : Turnelius de Sacramentis, quæst 7, art. 2, p. 447 : P. Coustantius de Epistolis Rom. Pontificum, tom. I, p. 250 ; de Reveroni in Dissertatione Dogmatica de dissidio inter S. Cyprianum et S. Stephanum, p. 71, et alii quam piures, quorum argumenta falsitatem eorum, quæ Firmilianus Stephano impegit astruentia prosequi per tempus non licet. Id unum asserere juverit, quod ultro concedet quilibet veri æquus æstimator, a Cypriano nimirum Dionysio Alexandrino, Eusebio, Augustino, Hieronymo, Vincentio Lirinensi, Facundo Hermian., cæterisque omnibus qui de hac re peccatis animis scripserunt, percipienda potius esse, quæ Stephanus contra rebaptizantes egit, quam ab uno Firmiliano infestissimo Stephani adversario, qui sermonem intra veritatis et æquitatis limites continere in citata epistola non valuerit.

Among the approved monuments of the ancients we do not count Firmilian's letter to Cyprian, which shows us the monstrous products of an angry mind, not the sayings of a holy bishop that savour of truth, religion, fairness, modesty and Christian charity. Firmilian does indeed write that Stephen broke peace with Cyprian, called him a false Christ and a false apostle, and denied communion and hospitality to his envoys; but these things are not read in Stephen's letters. None of the ancients so much as hinted at them about Stephen. Cyprian himself did not complain of them to Stephen, though he, giving way to his excitable temper, raised loud and bitter complaints about lesser matters. Augustine did not adduce them to lessen the blame of Cyprian's irritation against Stephen, as he laboured wholly to do. They do not at all accord with the gentleness, mildness and charity that shone everywhere in Stephen's life. If these things are to be believed because Firmilian blurted them out, then we shall have to believe that Stephen was bold, insolent, wicked, plainly foolish, inhuman, a schismatic, a false witness, worse than all heretics, to be compared with Judas himself, the betrayer of Christ; we shall have to believe that the blessed apostles Peter and Paul were defamed by Stephen, and that Holy Scripture speaks of no one more than of Stephen when it says, "A passionate man stirs up strife, and an angry man heaps up sins." We shall have to believe that the zeal of God is found more among the Jews, blind in their ignorance and bound by the gravest crime, than in Stephen, and that his soul is perhaps not one, so slippery, changeable and uncertain is it. We shall have to believe that Stephen broke peace with each of the bishops throughout the whole world by one kind of discord or another, and is rightly to be called a false Christ, a false apostle and a deceitful workman. We shall even have to believe that the Roman Church claims the authority of the apostles in vain, and that the apostolic traditions are not preserved in it. We shall have to believe that the heretics lived only a long age after the times of the Apostles. For all these things, to pass over others, Firmilian poured out in that letter. They show a man so agitated and stirred by bile that he could not attend to truth, fairness, religion and charity, and they therefore strip Firmilian, writing to Cyprian, of all credibility. And in truth the whole of antiquity held what Firmilian charges against Stephen to be pure and rotten fabrications. It finds nothing to blame in Stephen's conduct against Cyprian; on the contrary, it praises Stephen most constantly, and openly and repeatedly denies of Stephen what Firmilian openly affirms of him, as we shall show below. Nor is Firmilian's testimony on this matter valued any more highly among the writers of the French nation, the greater and sounder part of whom freely declare that no credit at all is to be given him. On this one may see Noël Alexandre, Ecclesiastical History, third century of the Church, dissertation 12, article 1, p. 687; Erassen [so printed], On the Sacraments, question 3, p. 96; Tournély, On the Sacraments, question 7, article 2, p. 447; Father Coustant, On the Letters of the Roman Pontiffs, vol. I, p. 250; de Reveroni, in the Dogmatic Dissertation on the Dispute between St Cyprian and St Stephen, p. 71; and very many others, whose arguments establishing the falsity of what Firmilian imputed to Stephen time does not allow us to pursue. It will be enough to assert this one thing, which any fair judge of the truth will readily grant: that what Stephen did against the rebaptizers is rather to be learned from Cyprian, namely, Dionysius of Alexandria, Eusebius, Augustine, Jerome, Vincent of Lérins, Facundus of Hermiane and all the others who wrote on this matter with heated minds [so printed: "peccatis animis"], than from Firmilian alone, Stephen's bitterest adversary, who could not keep his language within the bounds of truth and fairness in the letter cited.

(printed under page 722)

(79) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1342)

S. Cyprian. epist. 74, ad Pompeium et Firmil. Epist. 75, ad Cyprian., inter Cyprianicas.

St Cyprian, Letter 74, to Pompeius, and Firmilian, Letter 75, to Cyprian, among Cyprian's letters.

(printed under page 722)

(80) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1342)

August., lib. VI de Bapt., Contra Donat. c. 22

Augustine, On Baptism, against the Donatists, book VI, chapter 22.

(printed under page 722)

(81) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1342)

Id. lib. I de Bapt. c. 7.

The same, On Baptism, book I, chapter 7.

(printed under page 722)

(82) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1342)

Id. lib. VI de Bapt., c. 22.

The same, On Baptism, book VI, chapter 22.

(printed under page 722)

Page

running head: 1341 PARS II. — RECENTIORUM
marginal letters: A (in col. 1342); B (in col. 1342); C (in footenote block, col. 1342); D (in footnote block, col. 1342)
old-edition numerals: 1289 before Tandem
other: missing opening guillemet before Si quis ergo and before gravitatem; editors' matter: retinuisse, merito... ac (entire column)

PL 3:1342

rationum, quas obtulerat momentis minus permovisset, minis saltem, ad errorem deponendum excitaret. Haec pro vindicanda adversus Cyprianum, aliosque rebaptizantes antiqua et universali Ecclesiae traditione Stephanus Romanus pontifex, nec plura juxta probata veterum omnium monumenta.

by the weight of the reasons which he had offered he had moved less, he might stir up at least by threats to lay aside their error. These things did Stephen, the Roman pontiff, for vindicating the ancient and universal tradition of the Church against Cyprian and the other rebaptizers, and no more, according to the approved monuments of all the ancients.

Tam laudabile Stephani pro avita religione servanda studium notivitatem amantibus ac errantibus displicuit. Pastoris vox ab iis, qui de una agi disciplina male credebant non auditur, contemnitur; Qomanus ipse Pontifex arguitur injuriis, contumelis afficitur; verum Sthephanus spretus, injuriose tractatus et lacessitus nescit irasci, nescit indignari, nescit conqueri, irritari non valet, omnia fert, omnia sustinet, omnia patitur, « omnia bono pacis et unitatis tolerat. » Non judicem, non Pontificem maximum, non spretum, non offensum se cogitat, ut paternae ac chhistianae charitati unice intendat; filios errantes, inobtemperantes, ac contumeliosos non increpat, non objurgat, non punit, sed « vir ubique magnus ac magna charitate praeditus, » sollicita pietate tolerat, mansuetus et humilis non studet injurias repellere, vel laesum honorem vindicare,

So laudable a zeal of Stephen for preserving the ancestral religion displeased those who loved novelty and erred. The voice of the pastor is not heard by those who wrongly believed that it was a question of discipline alone; it is despised; the Roman Pontiff himself is assailed with injuries, is visited with contumelies; yet Stephen, despised, injuriously treated, and provoked, knows not how to be angry, knows not how to be indignant, knows not how to complain, cannot be irritated; he bears all things, endures all things, suffers all things, "tolerates all things for the good of peace and unity." He thinks of himself not as a judge, not as the Supreme Pontiff, not as despised, not as offended, that he may be intent solely upon paternal and Christian charity; his erring, disobedient, and contumelious sons he does not chide, does not rebuke, does not punish, but as "a man great everywhere and endowed with great charity," he tolerates them with anxious piety; meek and humble, he does not study to repel injuries, or to vindicate his wounded honour,

Editors' notes and page, col. 1342

Page

running head: RECENTIORUM EXCURSUS. 1342
marginal letters: A rationum, quas obtulerat; B unitatis tolerat (80). »; C (in footnote block); D (in footnote block)
old-edition numerals: 1290 before Tam
other: editors' matter: rationum, quas... vindi- (entire column); word split at end of column: vindi-
other: the word vindicare, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1343

PL 3:1343

sed « studet servare unitatem spiritus in vinculo pacis. » Senserat quam « perniciosae dissensionis periculum haberent, quae in ipsum irritati effuderant » adversarii ideoque omnia sub velo silentii, sub velo charitatis tegit: os suum nec aperit, ut suam defendat innocentiam, uni Deo suae justificationis curam relinquens; non propriis, sed Ecclesiae bonis, paci, non suae defensioni vigilat, et una « pax vicit in ipsius corde, » non desperans sua tandem patientia ac longanimitate adversariorum corda movere, ipsosque ad meliorem frugem reducere, quod ut a Deo impetraret bonis operibus magis ac magis abundare nitebatur.

but "studies to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." He had felt how "dangerous a peril of pernicious dissension the things held which his irritated adversaries had poured forth against him," and therefore he covers all things under the veil of silence, under the veil of charity: he does not even open his mouth to defend his own innocence, leaving the care of his justification to God alone; he watches over the goods not of himself, but of the Church, over peace, not over his own defence, and "peace alone conquered in his heart," not despairing by his patience and long-suffering to move at length the hearts of his adversaries, and bring them back to a better mind; to obtain which from God he strove to abound more and more in good works.

Interim enim, dum magni a rebaptizantibus motus in Africa et Ortente excitantur, ipse domi « monitionibus sanctis et eruditione Scripturarum omnes imbuebat, » caeterisque eo grandior, quo sibi vilior commissum gregem coelesti doctrina pascere non solebat, nisi praemissa suae indignitatis confessione: se audiri rogabat non ut pontificem, non ut magistrum, non ut pastorem, sed ut peccatorem; « Filioli mei, » humilis inquiebat, « audite me peccatorem; » qui autem omnes Christo lucrifacere contendebat, non fidelibus tantum erudiendis ac sanctificandis, sed et gentilibus ad fidem convertendis totus allaborabat; quot vero, quantique fuerint apostolici tunc temporis sanctissimi pontificis labores, referunt acta Hippolyti, Eusebii et sociorum, in quibus etiam videre est Stephanum ipsum ethnicis baptizandis ita occupatum, ac si vel nihil negotii haberet, vel presbyteri deessent, quibus eam curam committeret, dum vacaret ipse gravioribus. Irritos Deus noluit tot Stephani labores: optata Stephano concessa merces, « crescente in dies Christianorum numero. »

For meanwhile, while great movements are stirred up by the rebaptizers in Africa and the East, he himself at home "imbued all with holy admonitions and the instruction of the Scriptures," and being all the greater beyond the rest, the viler he was to himself, he was not wont to feed the flock committed to him with heavenly doctrine without first premising a confession of his own unworthiness: he asked to be heard not as pontiff, not as master, not as pastor, but as a sinner: "My little children," said the humble man, "hear me a sinner"; and he who strove to gain all for Christ laboured wholly not only in instructing and sanctifying the faithful, but also in converting the Gentiles to the faith; now how many and how great were the apostolic labours of the most holy pontiff at that time, the Acts of Hippolytus, Eusebius, and their companions relate, wherein also one may see Stephen himself so occupied in baptizing heathens as though either he had no other business, or presbyters were lacking to whom he might commit that care while he himself had leisure for weightier things. God willed not that so many labours of Stephen should be in vain: the desired reward was granted to Stephen, "as the number of Christians grew day by day."

His deditum sollicitudinis pastoralis, ac zeli apostolici officiis Stephanum excepit epistola Dionysii magni Alexandriae urbis episcopi. Cum enim ad praeclarissimi hujus antistitis notitiam pervenissent hinc et inde in rebaptizantium negotio gesta, facile intellexit quam gravi dolore Romani pontificis animus

While Stephen was given up to these offices of pastoral solicitude and apostolic zeal, the letter of Dionysius the Great, bishop of the city of Alexandria, reached him. For when the things done on this side and on that in the business of the rebaptizers had come to the knowledge of this most noble prelate, he easily understood with how heavy a grief the mind of the Roman pontiff

Editors' notes and page, col. 1343

Footnotes

(83) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1343)

August., lib. VI, de Bapt. c. 22.

Augustine, On Baptism, book VI, chapter 22.

(printed under page 723)

(84) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1343)

Id. lib. V de Bapt. c. 25.

The same, On Baptism, book V, chapter 25.

(printed under page 723)

(85) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1343)

Id. Ibid.

The same, same place.

(printed under page 723)

(86) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1343)

In Actis Hippolyti, Eusebii et sociorum apud Baronium ad an. 259, quæ legitima certo videri fatetur etiam Tillemontius nota 2, In S. Stephanum his verbis : Baronius nous donne dans ses Annales les actes des saints Eusèbe, Marcel, Ifsppolyte, etc., comme des actes légitimes, ils en ont assurément beaucoup l'air.

In the Acts of Hippolytus, Eusebius and their companions, in Baronius under the year 259, which even Tillemont admits certainly appear genuine, in note 2 on St Stephen, in these words: "Baronius gives us in his Annals the acts of Saints Eusebius, Marcellus, Hippolytus [printed "Ifsppolyte"], etc., as genuine acts; they certainly have much the air of being so."

(printed under page 723)

(87) ‹anchor: me peccatorem› · call in col 1343

Ibid.

Same place.

(printed under page 723)

(88) ‹anchor: in dies Christianorum numero› · call in col 1343

Ibid.

Same place.

(printed under page 723)

(89) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1343)

Apud Eusebium Histor. Eccles., lib. VII cap. 5, et supra.

In Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book VII, chapter 5, and above.

(printed under page 723)

(90) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1343)

Ibid.

Same place.

(printed under page 723)

Page

running head: 1343 DE HAERETICORUM BA
marginal letters: A (in col. 1344); B (in col. 1344); C (in col. 1344); D (in footnote block, col. 1343)
old-edition numerals: 1291 before qui
other: editors' matter: care, sed... ani- (entire column); words split at column breaks: care (vindicare), ani-
other: the word animus was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1344

PL 3:1344

affectus esse debuerat, justamque timendi causam invenit Stephanum a rebaptizantibus spretum injurioseve tractatum tandem moveri posse ad poenas, quas illis minitatus fuerat infligendas: idcirco pro sua erga Stephanum singulari dilectione illius moerorem sublevare per litteras accelerat, ipsiusque clementiam pro rebaptizantibus implorat: quod enim tanto ecclesiarum pacis amatori pontifici pergratum maxime futurum non ambigebat, ipsi sollicite nuntiat « cunctas per Orientem et ulterius positas Ecclesias, quae prius » ob Novatiani pravitatem « erant discissae nunc tandem ad unitatem reversas esse, et omnes ubicunque Ecclesiarum antistites unum idemque sentire et ob redditam insperato pacem incredibili gaudio exsultare; » nec sine jucunditate in memoriam ipsi revocat quanta charitate ac liberalitate remotissimis Syriarum et Arabiae provinciis omnibus tum litteris, tum nummis saepius succurrerit, quas ob hanc concordiam ubique laetitia gestire ipsi significat. Denique omnia de pacifici pontificis bonitate sibi pollicitus, minarum, quas rebaptizantibus intentarat, exsecutionem suis precibus avertere confidit « pro illis Stephanum rogans atque obtestans. » Hanc Dionysii spem non fefellit eventus, cum Stephanus « vir magna charitate praeditus, rebaptizantes in charitatis patientia sollicita pietate toleraverit. »

must have been affected, and found a just cause for fearing that Stephen, despised or injuriously treated by the rebaptizers, might at length be moved to inflict the punishments with which he had threatened them: therefore, according to his singular love towards Stephen, he hastens by letter to relieve his sorrow, and implores his clemency for the rebaptizers: for that which he doubted not would be most exceedingly pleasing to a pontiff who was so great a lover of the peace of the churches, he solicitously announces to him, namely, "that all the Churches situated throughout the East and beyond, which previously" on account of the depravity of Novatian "had been rent asunder, have now at length returned to unity, and that all the prelates of the Churches everywhere think one and the same thing, and exult with incredible joy on account of the peace unexpectedly restored"; and not without pleasantness he recalls to his memory with how great charity and liberality he had quite often succoured all the most remote provinces of the Syrias and Arabia both with letters and with money, which provinces he signifies to him are everywhere leaping for joy on account of this concord. Finally, promising himself all things from the goodness of the peaceful pontiff, he trusts by his prayers to avert the execution of the threats which he had held out against the rebaptizers, "entreating and beseeching Stephen for them." The event did not disappoint this hope of Dionysius, since Stephen, "a man endowed with great charity, tolerated the rebaptizers in the patience of charity with anxious piety."

Immanis, quae saeviebat in dies adversus Christianos Valeriani imperatoris persecutio Stephani zelum, curasque pastorales non minuit. sed auxit: eo fortior, quo majoribus premebatur angustiis, eo vigilantior, quo graviora instabant pericula, illuxit tunc, calamitosissimis nimirum temporibus quanta esset pontificii animi magnitudo quantus pastoris in greges amor, quanta sollicitudo, quanta in ferendis laboribus constantia, quantus denique paternae erga omnes charitatis ardor. Quibus enim conatibus tyrannus dispergere, ille colligere dilectum gregem allaborabat quaesitos ucique « Christianos in martyrum cryptis ac coemeteriis congregans, ut omnes de regno Dei et vita aeterna doceret; » hic vero eos

The monstrous persecution of the Emperor Valerian, which raged day by day against the Christians, did not diminish the zeal and pastoral cares of Stephen, but increased them: all the stronger the greater the straits by which he was pressed, all the more vigilant the graver the perils that threatened, there shone forth then, namely in the most calamitous times, how great was the greatness of the pontifical mind, how great the love of the pastor towards his flocks, how great his solicitude, how great his constancy in bearing labours, how great finally the ardour of his paternal charity towards all. For with as great endeavours as the tyrant laboured to scatter, he laboured to gather together the beloved flock, "assembling in the crypts and cemeteries of the martyrs the Christians" sought out everywhere, "that he might teach all concerning the kingdom of God and life eternal"; and here he did not cease to exhort them

Editors' notes and page, col. 1344

Footnotes

(91) ‹anchor: Stephanum rogans atque obtestans› · call in col 1344

Ibid.

Same place.

(printed under page 723)

(92) ‹anchor: sollicita pietate toleraverit› · call in col 1344

Augustinus, locis supra citatis.

Augustine, in the places cited above.

(printed under page 723)

(93) ‹anchor: regno Dei et vita æterna doceret› · call in col 1344

Hæc et sequentia usque ad Stephani Vitæ finem litteris Romanis seu ut vocant cursivis delineata ex authenticis Stephani Actis excerpimus, quæ paulo post illius martyrium a notariis Romanis conscripta sunt, Ecclesiæque universæ tum Latinæ tum Græcæ per tot retro sæcula probata, ut videre est apud Odoacrum Ilbachium in Actis SS. martyrum vindicatis Romæ, an. 1723, excusis, et apud Bollandi continuatores ad diem 2 Augusti de illorum auctoritate fusius disserentes, a quibus hæc mutuati sumus in eorum commodum qui citatos auctores præ manibus non haberent. 1° Stephani Acta apud omnes sunt vulgatissima; exstant in pluribus Græcis, Italicis, Gallicis, Germanicis, Belgicis, aliarumque nationum manuscriptis codicibus, in quorum nonnullis vetustissimis illa Acta dicuntur scripta fideliter et graviter a notariis Romanis Latine, 2° Antiquissima sunt et universæ Ecclesiæ probata. S. Damasus papa, carm. 35, inter ejus opera a Sarazanio collecta, ex his Actis nonnulla excerpsit, quæ scilicet de S. Tharsicio canit, hæc enim nusquam nisi in Actis S. Stephani descripta fuisse sciuntur. Ado Viennensis archiep. Stephani acta in codicibus passionum undique collectis quorum meminit in præfatione ad vetus Martyrologium Romanum invenit, et in suo Martyrologio exscripsit, (continues)

This and what follows, to the end of the Life of Stephen, set in Roman letters or, as they are called, cursive [so printed], we have excerpted from the authentic Acts of Stephen, which were written by Roman notaries shortly after his martyrdom and have been approved by the whole Church, Latin and Greek alike, through so many past centuries, as may be seen in Odoardo Ilbachius [so printed], The Acts of the Holy Martyrs Vindicated, printed at Rome in 1723, and in the continuators of Bolland under 2 August, who discuss their authority at greater length; we have borrowed these points from them for the convenience of those who do not have the cited authors to hand. 1. The Acts of Stephen are very widely known to all; they survive in many Greek, Italian, French, German, Belgian and other nations' manuscript codices, in some of the oldest of which those Acts are said to have been "written faithfully and soberly by Roman notaries in Latin." 2. They are very ancient and approved by the whole Church. Pope St Damasus, poem 35, among his works collected by Sarazanio, excerpted some things from these Acts, namely what he sings of St Tarsicius, for these things are known to have been written down nowhere but in the Acts of St Stephen. Ado, archbishop of Vienne, found the acts of Stephen in the codices of passions gathered from every quarter, which he mentions in his preface to the old Roman Martyrology, and copied them into his own Martyrology, (continues)

(printed under page 723)

Page

running head: TICORUM BAPTISMATE. 1344
marginal letters: A mus affectus esse; B nec sine jucunditate; C vigilantior, 1292 quo; D (in footnote block)
old-edition numerals: 1292 before quo
other (QA Q1a 2026-10-25): calls (87) after exsultare and (90) after significat stand in this column; their notes are filed in n1343
other (QA Q1a 2026-10-25): misprints as printed, set back: ucique (for ubique); "non minuit. sed auxit" (full stop for comma)

PL 3:1345

[horta]ri non desinebat, ut pro Christo martyrii [palm]am alacriter suspicerent: « Fratres, inquiebat, [com]militones mei, respuite facultates terrenas, [ut reg]num coeleste percipiatis; nolite timere prin[cipes] saeculi, sed orate Dominum Deum Coeli et Je[sum] Christum Filium ejus qui potens et nos omnes [liberar]e a manibus inimicorum est diaboli saevitia et [suae g]ratiae sociare: » tanta vero Stephanus in do[cendo] et in exhortando gratia ac sapientia pollebat, [ut e]x paganis ipsis multi concurrerent ut audi[rent v]erbum ejus. » Quae vero fuerit Stephani ser[monu]m efficacia, probat numerosa illa paganorum [multit]udo, quae Stephano audito religioni christia[nae si]ne mora nomen dabat, quosque omnes inde[fessus] pontifex non alienis, sed propriis manibus [sacr]i baptismatis mysteriis consecrabat; » pro[bant e]t illae Christianorum generosae voces, quibus [Steph]ano fidei necessitatem, aliasque virtutes con[cion]anti succinebant: « Nos desideramus et faculta[tes te]rrenas derelinquere, etiam et sanguinem [nostrum p]er nomen Domini nostri Jesu Christi fundere, [ut t]amen ejus meremur gratiam adipisci. »

cheerfully to take up the palm of martyrdom for Christ: "Brethren, said he, my fellow-soldiers, spurn earthly possessions, that you may receive the heavenly kingdom; fear not the princes of the world, but pray to the Lord God of Heaven and Jesus Christ His Son, Who is able both to deliver us all from the hands of our enemies and from the savagery of the devil, and to unite us to His grace": and with so great grace and wisdom was Stephen strong in teaching and in exhorting, "that even of the pagans themselves many ran together to hear his word." Now what the efficacy of the discourses of Stephen was, that numerous multitude of pagans proves, which upon hearing Stephen gave in its name without delay to the Christian religion, all of whom the unwearying pontiff consecrated "with the mysteries of holy baptism" not by others', but by his own hands; those generous voices of the Christians also prove it, wherewith they chimed in with Stephen as he preached the necessity of faith and other virtues: "We desire both to forsake earthly possessions, and even to pour forth our blood for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, so that we may deserve to obtain His grace."

[Ut a]utem fortes ac costantes redderet S. Pontifex [illos p]ietatis sensus, quos screbris exhortationibus [in fide]lium corda excitabat, ac ingerebat, saepius [pro] illis sacrificium Deo offerebat » curabatque [ut o]mnes corpore et sanguine Christi participa[rent.] Tantaque ipsis virtutum omnium exempla [praebe]bat, ut Romanis, oculatis nempe testibus [« Spiri]tus sancti gratia repletus, » veluti alter Ste[phanu]s protomartyr videretur, ac diceretur. Sic [verbo,] opere et exemplo gentiles ad fidem conver[tere, f]ideles in fide corroborare, ac ad martyrium [fortite]r obeundum disponere Stephanus R. pontifex [conab]atur. Tot ornatum virtutibus pontificem et [mirac]ulis clarescere Deus voluit; quam enim suis [exhor]tationibus Christo per Baptismum generat [Lucill]am Nemesii Tribuni « filiam vi suarum ora[tionu]m a nativitate caecam » etiam « illuminat. » [Quid m]irum igitur si sub tanto pontifice tot viderit

Moreover, in order that the holy Pontiff might render strong and constant those sentiments of piety which by frequent exhortations he stirred up and instilled into the hearts of the faithful, he quite often "offered sacrifice to God for them," and took care "that all should partake of the body and blood of Christ." And he afforded them so great examples of all virtues that to the Romans, namely eye-witnesses, he seemed and was called "filled with the grace of the Holy Spirit," like another Stephen the Protomartyr. Thus by word, work, and example did Stephen, the Roman pontiff, endeavour to convert the Gentiles to the faith, to strengthen the faithful in the faith, and to dispose them to undergo martyrdom bravely. The pontiff adorned with so many virtues God willed to shine forth with miracles also; for Lucilla, the daughter of Nemesius the Tribune, whom by his exhortations he begets to Christ through Baptism, "blind from birth, by the force of his prayers" he also "illuminates." What wonder therefore if under so great a pontiff Rome saw so many

Editors' notes and page, col. 1345

Footnotes

(printed under page 724) (93, continued) ‹anchor: in col 1344 (regno Dei et vita æterna doceret)› · continuation of note (93) from page 723 (n1344); printed in col 1345, continues in col 1346 (bium revocare … non habuerint) [Marty]rologium Romanum vetus octavo sæculo con[script]um ea Stephani Acta sequitur in describendo [ejus] martyrio et altiorum qui in his actis passi re[ferunt]ur. Hæc Stephani in acta in omnibus Mæno[logiis] et Mænæis Græcorum, in Martyrologio etiam [Basil]i imperatoris, in Martylogiis Usuardi et Not[keri c]ompendiose exhibentur. Hæc S. Petrus Damia[nus, s]erm. 30, de Stephano, Authenticam passionis [ejus h]istoriam appellat. Metaphrastes e Latinis ea [Græc]a fecit ut videre est apud Lipomanum est Su[rium.] Demum ut omnia verbo dicam Martyrologia [omni]a, breviaria omnia antiqua non Romana tan[tum, s]ed et plurimarum per Occidentem Ecclesia[rum,] omnia Græcorum et Mænologia et mænea Ste[phani] nostri martyrium non aliunde quam ex his [Actis d]eduxerunt. [S]icuti veterum nemo de istorum Actorum au[ctorit]ate unquam dubitavit, ita postremis etiam [sæcul]is elapsis, germana et fidelissima visa sunt iis [qui an]tiquitati illustrandæ sedulo vacarunt. Consu[lere] placet, Schelestratium insignem antiquarium, [Antiq]uit eccles., tom. I, dissert. 2, cap. 7. Nunc ve[ro, …]cis Neotericis a Pearsonio heterodoxo edoc[tis pl]acuit istorum Actorum auctoritatem in du- (continues)

The old Roman Martyrology, written in the eighth century, follows these Acts of Stephen in describing his martyrdom and that of the others [printed "altiorum"] who are related in these acts to have suffered. These acts of Stephen are set out in summary in all the Menologies and Menaea of the Greeks, in the Martyrology also of the Emperor Basil, and in the Martyrologies [printed "Martylogiis"] of Usuard and Notker. St Peter Damian, Sermon 30, on Stephen, calls them the authentic history of his passion. Metaphrastes made them Greek from the Latin, as may be seen in Lipomanus and [printed "est"] Surius. Finally, to say everything in a word, all the martyrologies, all the ancient breviaries, not of the Roman Church only but of very many Churches throughout the West, and all the Menologies and Menaea of the Greeks, have drawn the martyrdom of our Stephen from no other source than these Acts. Just as none of the ancients ever doubted the authority of these Acts, so also in the latest centuries they have seemed genuine and most faithful to those who have diligently devoted themselves to illustrating antiquity. Consult, if you will, Schelestrate, an eminent antiquary, Antiquitas ecclesiastica, vol. I, dissertation 2, chapter 7. But now certain moderns, taught by the heterodox Pearson, have seen fit to call the authority of these Acts into (continues)

(printed under page 724)

(94) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1346)

Catalogus R. Pontif. 6 sæculi et Anastasius bibliot. ad Vitam S. Stephani.

The Catalogue of the Roman Pontiffs of the sixth century, and Anastasius the Librarian, on the Life of St Stephen.

(printed under page 724)

(95) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1346)

Ibid.

Same place.

(printed under page 724)

Page

running head: [1345] PARS II. — RECENTIORU
marginal letters: A (in col. 1346); B (in col. 1346); C (in col. 1346); D (in footnote block, col. 1345)
old-edition numerals: 1293 after desinebat,
other: left margin of column 1345 cropped in scan; bracketed letters supplied from context and standard editions of the Acts of St. Stephen; editors' matter: [horta]ri non... viderit (entire column)
other (QA Q2a 2026-10-25): the continuation of note (93) printed at the foot of col 1345 was missing from the notes; set above from the cropped foot image (conjectural supplements in [ ]; […] where the lost letters cannot be supplied). Its last part (bium revocare … non habuerint) stands in col 1346 and is not yet set in n1346. Footnote misprints as printed: altiorum (for aliorum), Martylogiis (for Martyrologiis), est (for et, before Surium), mænea (for Menæa), "Stephani in acta" (in superfluous); the readings altiorum and est are UNSURE on the cropped image.
other (QA Q2a 2026-10-25): the column opens with the tail of a word split at the break (horta-/ri); it is set here bracketed and has no source counterpart at the end of col 1344 (c1344 ends "hic vero eos"), while c1344's English already carries "did not cease to exhort them". By the house rule the word should stand whole at the end of col 1344 and this column open at "non desinebat": fix both columns together.
other (QA Q2a 2026-10-25): UNSURE on the cropped edge: a quotation mark may stand before "Tantaque" (participa[rent. »]); the opening « of that quotation is in the cropped margin.

PL 3:1346

Roma, tot celebret Ecclesia generosos Christi atletas, qui ad agonem usque pro Christo certaverint, qui spretis minis sicut promissis, blanditiis, honoribus, divitiis aeque ac tormentis superatis, martyrii palmam tunc fuerint consecuti, quorum « corporas » sicut ubique « requiri curabat, » ita sepelire ipse » pontifex humilis ac religiosus « non dedignabatur. »

generous athletes of Christ, and the Church celebrates so many, who contended even unto the death-struggle for Christ, who despising threats just as promises, and overcoming blandishments, honours, and riches equally with torments, then obtained the palm of martyrdom; whose "bodies," just as "he took care that they should be sought out" everywhere, so the humble and religious pontiff "did not disdain to bury himself."

Tot pro servanda ac propaganda religione Christiana exantlatis laboribus, tot sustentis angustiis, pluribusque institutis episcopis, presbyteris ac diaconibus; ac superato jam exsilio, teste Anastasio, Stephano jam nihil supererat, quam tandem illam pro ovibus animam ponere, quam perdere pro illis nunquam timuerat, cruentoque sacrificio sese victimam Deo placentem offerre, qui incruentis toties sese immolaverat: hoc unum Stephano restabat ardentissimae erga Deum et homines suae charitatis praebendum specinem: hoc unum pulcherrimum Deo, et hominibus dandum a pontifice maximo spectaculum; Stephano datur occasio, occasioni Stephanus non defuit; pro Christo, pro grege moritur qui pro Christo, pro grege semper vixerat; quemque tot sudoribus sibi creditum agrum irrigaverat, suo etiam sanguine fecundare non recusat, gloriosoque martyrio sanctissimae ac laboriosissimae vitae finem imponit.

When so many labours had been exhausted for preserving and propagating the Christian religion, so many straits endured, and many bishops, presbyters, and deacons instituted; and when exile had already been overcome, as Anastasius testifies, nothing now remained for Stephen save at length to lay down for his sheep that life which he had never feared to lose for them, and by a bloody sacrifice to offer himself a victim pleasing to God, who had so many times immolated himself in unbloody ones: this one proof remained for Stephen to afford of his most ardent charity towards God and men; this one most beautiful spectacle remained to be given to God and to men by the Supreme Pontiff; the occasion is given to Stephen, and Stephen did not fail the occasion: for Christ and for the flock dies he who had always lived for Christ and for the flock; and the field entrusted to him which he had watered with so many sweats, he does not refuse to make fruitful with his own blood also, and by a glorious martyrdom puts an end to a most holy and most laborious life.

Cum enim Valerianus imperator accepisset Stephanum « suis persuasionibus atque adhortationibus » populo ab idololatria revocando incumbere, missis militibus illum comprehendit; comprehensum pastorem « Christianorum plurimi sequebantur a longe cum lacrymis; » ad tyranni tribunal adductus palam confitetur « Christum Jesum Filium Dei Deum esse cum Patre et Spiritu sancto; » Valeriano libere declarat « daemonia » esse quae a paganis « adorabantur idola, » seque Romanos « monere atque hortari, ut, illis derelictis ad Deum vivum et verum Creatorem coeli et terrae redirent. » Auditum Stephanum jubet imperator in fanum

For when the Emperor Valerian had learned that Stephen "by his persuasions and exhortations" was applying himself to recalling the people from idolatry, sending soldiers he arrested him; "very many of the Christians followed" the arrested pastor "from afar with tears"; brought to the tribunal of the tyrant, he openly confesses "that Christ Jesus the Son of God is God with the Father and the Holy Spirit"; to Valerian he freely declares that "the idols which were adored" by the pagans are "demons," and that he "warned and exhorted the Romans that, forsaking them, they should return to the living and true God, the Creator of heaven and earth." After hearing Stephen, the emperor commands him to be led into the temple

Editors' notes and page, col. 1346

Page

running head: RECENTIORUM EXCURSUS. 1346
marginal letters: A Roma, tot celebret; B qui incruentis toties; C sum pastorem « Christianorum; D (in footnote block)
old-edition numerals: 1294 before cruento-
other: editors' matter: Roma, tot... fanum (entire column)

PL 3:1347

Martis deduci, ubi, si illi sacrificare nollet, capitis sententia puniretur; sanctus Pontifex ibi « levatis, ad coelum oculis » orationem ad Deum coram omnibus effundit; ac repente de coelo tactum est delubrum et idolum, et magna ex parte corruit, quod cernentes milites pavefacti fugerunt; Stephanus vero, suis comitatus ad sanctae Lucinae coemeterium se recipit, ibique fidelibus « ut bonus pastor multis consolationibus, atque exhortationibus » ad martyrium accensis » obtulit sacrificium Deo omnipotenti. » Haec audiens Valerianus milites rursus ad eum capiendum mittit, qui Stephanum inveniunt sacricium Deo offerentem, qui « intrepidus et constans ante altaris solemnia et jugiter coepta perficiens eodem loco, sic in sua decollatus est sede sub die quarto Nonarum Augustarum. Factus est autem maximus Christianorum planctus, qui talem pastorem cum gloria martyrii praemiserunt ad coelestia regna. Sepelierunt autem ejus corpus cum ipsa sede « sanguine ejus conspersa « in eadem crypta, quae est in coemeterio Callixti, via Appia.

to be led to [the temple] of Mars, where, if he would not sacrifice to it, he would be punished with sentence of death; there the holy Pontiff, "with eyes lifted up to heaven," poured out a prayer to God before them all; and suddenly the shrine and the idol were struck from heaven and in great part fell down, at the sight of which the soldiers fled in terror. Stephen, however, accompanied by his own, withdrew to the cemetery of St Lucina, and there, for the faithful "kindled to martyrdom, like a good shepherd, by many consolations and exhortations," "he offered the sacrifice to almighty God." Hearing this, Valerian sends soldiers again to seize him, who find Stephen offering the sacrifice to God; and he, "intrepid and steadfast before the solemn rites of the altar, and continuing to complete what he had begun, in the same place was thus beheaded on his own chair, on the fourth day before the Nones of August. And there was the greatest lamentation of the Christians, who had sent such a shepherd before them, with the glory of martyrdom, to the heavenly kingdom. And they buried his body with the chair itself," "sprinkled with his blood," "in the same crypt which is in the cemetery of Callistus, on the Appian Way."

Haec S. Stephani Romani illo nomine primi pontificis vitae coronides. Haec praecipua gesta inclyti illius fidei apostolicae defensoris, quem universa Ecclesia tanquam martyrem gloriosum jugiter coluit et colit, Latina quidem die 2 Augusti, Graeca vero eodem die, vel sequente, vel etiam 30 Augusti et 7 Septembris, ut videre est in diversis Graecorum fastis apud Bollandi continuatores ad diem secundum Augusti; huic porro Ecclesiae judicio de Stephani martyrio tota sufragatur antiquitas.

Such is the close of the life of St Stephen, the first Roman pontiff of that name. Such are the chief deeds of that renowned defender of the apostolic faith, whom the universal Church has continually honoured and honours as a glorious martyr, the Latin Church on 2 August, the Greek on the same day, or the following, or also on 30 August and 7 September, as may be seen in the various calendars of the Greeks in Bolland's continuators at the second day of August; and to this judgement of the Church on Stephen's martyrdom the whole of antiquity gives its vote.

Stephanum enim martyrio fuisse coronatum, martyrem fuisse veterum nullus negavit unquam, aut dubitavit; testantur vero germana Stephani Acta, ut vidimus. Martyrologium S. Hieronymi apud Florentinium, missale Ambrosianum, Liber pontificalis sub nomine Damasi papae apud Labbeum, S. Gregorii liber Sacramentorum, Martyrologium Romanum vetus octavo circiter saeculo conscriptum S. Paulus R. Pontifex in suo diplomate pro translatione reliquiarum S. Stephani: Anastasius Bibliothecarius, ubi de Stephano; Venerabilis Bedae Martyrologium, Menologia et Maenea Graecorum, Menologium etiam Basilii imperatoris; Martyrologia Adonis, Usuardi, Notkeri apud Canisium, Rabanus archiepiscopus Moguntinus in suo Martyrologio; Waldelbertus, Ordericus Vitalis, in lib. Eccl. Histor; Metaphrastes apud Lipomanum, S. Petrus Damianus. sermone 38 de S. Stephano; hodiernum Martyrologium Romanum, Martyrologium Gallicanum, etc. Id pariter confirmant sacra et pervetusta plurium in Italia, Sicilia, Hispania, Germania Lotharingia, Belgio ecclesiarum monumenta, in quibus fit mentio reliquiarum S. Stephani « papae et martyris quae ibidem cum magna veneratione asservantur. » Una tandem omnium de Stephani martyrio hactenus erat sententia, quando neotericos quosdam aetate nostra non puduit Stephani martyrium vetustissimis tot per Ecclesiam universam testimoniis assertum in dubium revocare, eo quod S. Augustinus et Vincentius Lirinensis nil de Stephani martyrio scripserint, et in uno antiquo privati cujusdam Kalendario Stephanus martyris titulo non decoretur, et tandem quia S. Pontius in Vita S. Cypriani Xystum Stephani successorem vocaverit « bonum et pacificum sacerdotem ac beatissimum martyrem, » ex quo inferunt argute Pontium his verbis voluisse Stephanum perstringere ac negare eum fuisse beatum martyrem, quae neotericorum pro abjudicando Stephani martyrio argumenta, seu potius misera perturbati animi ludibria exponere jam est refutare; qui plura ac magis testata et illustrata de Stephani martyrio desiderat, consulat inter alios Odoacrum Ilbachium in Actis sanctorum martyrum vindicatis, Romae an. 1725 excusis, lib. v, cap. 6 et 7, ac praecipue eruditos Bollandi continuatores ad diem 2 Augusti, quorum laboriosis inquisitionibus non parum adjutos nos hic fuisse memores et grati, candide ac libenter agnoscimus et declaramus.

For that Stephen was crowned with martyrdom, that he was a martyr, none of the ancients ever denied or doubted; indeed the genuine Acts of Stephen bear witness to it, as we have seen. So do the Martyrology of St Jerome in Fiorentini, the Ambrosian missal, the Liber pontificalis under the name of Pope Damasus in Labbe, the Sacramentary of St Gregory, the old Roman Martyrology written about the eighth century, St Paul, Roman Pontiff, in his diploma for the translation of the relics of St Stephen; Anastasius the Librarian, where he treats of Stephen; the Martyrology of the Venerable Bede, the Menologia and Menaea of the Greeks, and also the Menologium of the emperor Basil; the Martyrologies of Ado, Usuard and Notker in Canisius; Rabanus, archbishop of Mainz, in his Martyrology; Waldelbert; Orderic Vitalis in the book of his Ecclesiastical History; Metaphrastes in Lipomano; St Peter Damian in sermon 38 on St Stephen; the present Roman Martyrology, the Gallican Martyrology, etc. The same is likewise confirmed by the sacred and very ancient records of many churches in Italy, Sicily, Spain, Germany, Lorraine and Belgium, in which mention is made of the relics of St Stephen, "pope and martyr, which are kept there with great veneration." In short, the opinion of all on Stephen's martyrdom was one until now, when certain moderns in our own age were not ashamed to call into doubt Stephen's martyrdom, asserted by so many most ancient testimonies throughout the universal Church, on the grounds that St Augustine and Vincent of Lérins wrote nothing about Stephen's martyrdom, and that in one ancient Calendar of a certain private person Stephen is not honoured with the title of martyr, and finally because St Pontius in the Life of St Cyprian called Xystus, Stephen's successor, "a good and peaceable priest and a most blessed martyr"; from which they cleverly infer that Pontius wished by these words to censure Stephen and to deny that he was a blessed martyr. To set out these arguments of the moderns for taking away Stephen's martyrdom, or rather these wretched mockeries of a troubled mind, is already to refute them. Whoever desires more, and better attested and illustrated, on Stephen's martyrdom, let him consult, among others, Odoacer Ilbach in the Acts of the Holy Martyrs Vindicated, printed at Rome in the year 1725, Book V, chapters 6 and 7, and above all the learned continuators of Bolland at the 2nd of August, by whose laborious researches we have been not a little helped here, which, mindful and grateful, we candidly and gladly acknowledge and declare.

Appendix ad Vitam S. Stephani Romani Pontificis et Martyris in qua ipsius contra S. Cyprianum aliosque rebaptizantes agendi ratio veterum testimoniis a quorumdam neotericorum calumniis vindicatur.

Appendix to the Life of St Stephen, Roman Pontiff and Martyr, in which his manner of proceeding against St Cyprian and the other rebaptizers is vindicated by the testimonies of the ancients from the calumnies of certain moderns.

Editors' notes and page, col. 1347

Footnotes

(96) ‹anchor: sic in sua decollatus est sede› · call in col 1347 (note printed in cols 1347–1348)

Stephani martyrium capitis amputatione fuisse consummatum præter Stephani acta tradunt Anastasius bibl. in Vita Stephani, Martyrologium Romanum, Martyrologia Adonis, Usuardi et Notkeri, Græcorum Mænologia, Græcorum Mænea, Mænologium Basilii imperatoris ; Metaphrastes apud Lipomanum, S. Petrus Damianus, sermone 32 de Stephano ; Platina in Vita Stephani, Martyrologium Gallicanum, uno verbo qui ex veteribus omnes Stephani morti describendæ vacarunt, quorum nemo aliud mortis genus ipsi affingit. Hæc antiquissima, hæc una de Stepheni morte hactenus ecclesiarum omnium traditio, cui patius subscribendum esse puto, quam Tillemontio sine teste, sine probatione temere conjiciendo effutienti in notis ad S. Stephanum, Ipsum obiisse in carcere, vel exilio vel alio minus glorioso, non autem per Judicis sententiam aut manu persecutorum, quod verum tunc temporis perfectumque martyrium reputabatur. Ita Tillemontius pro suo ad conciliandam Stephano venerationem studio.

That Stephen's martyrdom was consummated by the cutting off of his head is reported, besides Stephen's acts, by Anastasius the Librarian in the Life of Stephen, the Roman Martyrology, the Martyrologies of Ado, Usuard and Notker, the Menologies of the Greeks, the Menaea of the Greeks, the Menology of the emperor Basil; Metaphrastes in Lipomano, St Peter Damian in sermon 32 on Stephen; Platina in the Life of Stephen, the Gallican Martyrology; in a word, all those of the ancients who set themselves to describe Stephen's death, none of whom ascribes any other manner of death to him. This is the most ancient tradition, and until now the only tradition of all the churches, concerning the death of Stephen [printed "Stepheni"], and I think it should rather [printed "patius"] be subscribed to than Tillemont, who without witness or proof, rashly conjecturing, blurts out in his notes on St Stephen that "he died in prison, or in exile, or in some other less glorious way, and not by a judge's sentence or at the hand of the persecutors, which was at that time reckoned true and perfect martyrdom." So Tillemont, in his zeal to win veneration for Stephen.

(printed under page 725)

Page

running head: 1347 DE HAERETICORUM BA
marginal letters: A (in col. 1348); B (in col. 1348); C (in col. 1348); D (in col. 1348)
old-edition numerals: 1275 before corpus
other: oldnum 1275 is a misprint for 1295; three full-width lines across cols. 1347-1348 not set: Appendix ad Vitam S. Stephani Romani Pontificis et Martyris in qua ipsius contra S. Cyprianum / aliosque rebaptizantes agendi ratio veterum testimoniis a quorumdam neotericorum calumniis / vindicatur.; editors' matter: Martis deduci... tra- (entire column); word split at end of column: tra-
other: a full-width band stands across cols 1347/1348 in mid-page: the 1 paragraph(s) above it in col 1348 are set here, after the 3 above it in col 1347 (reading order, moved on receipt); the band itself (its title lines) is not set by the volunteer page: set it here, at the move, with full_width
other: the word traditionem, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1348
running head: 1347 DE HAERETICORUM BAPTISMATE. 1348
marginal letters: A ‹Martis deduci, ubi, si illi sacrificare nollet› / ‹S. Paulus R. Pontifex in suo diplomate›; B ‹die quarto Nonarum Augustarum› / ‹et martyris quae ibidem›; C ‹cio de Stephani martyrio tota sufragatur› / ‹gumenta, seu potius misera›; D ‹S. Stephanus, ut vidimus› / ‹ditionem, illisque denuntiavit›
old-edition numerals: 1275 after ‹ejus› (Sepelierunt autem ejus); 1296 after ‹hodiernum›
other (QA Q2a 2026-10-25): the call (96) is printed in the column text after "sede" (decollatus est sede (96) sub die); anchor set.
other (QA Q2a 2026-10-25): PLACEMENT: col 1347's own text below the band (S. Stephanus, ut vidimus … mutarent Ecclesiae tra-, four lines) is not in c1347_a; it stands at the head of c1348_a (with traditionem joined there). By the --fullwidth rule it belongs here, after the band, under col 1347's rail, with col 1348 keeping only its own lower text (ditionem, illisque denuntiavit …). The note above that traditionem is joined "here" is therefore not true of this file. The text itself is not lost; fix the placement in c1347/c1348 together.
other (QA Q2a 2026-10-25): UNSURE in (96): "Notkeri" may be printed "Notkerii" (the line-end letters are broken on the foot image).

PL 3:1348

S. Stephanus, ut vidimus, in causa baptismatis haereticorum Cypriano, Firmiliano, aliisque rebaptizantibus praecepit, ne antiquam haereticos sine iterato baptismo recipiendi mutarent Ecclesiae traditionem, illisque denuntiavit sese ab illorum communione discessurum, si in sua sententia persisterent.

St Stephen, as we have seen, in the cause of the baptism of heretics, commanded Cyprian, Firmilian and the other rebaptizers not to change the ancient tradition of the Church of receiving heretics without a repeated baptism, and declared to them that he would withdraw from their communion if they persisted in their opinion.

Qui caeco in Romanos pontifices odio abrepti illorum

Those who, carried away by blind hatred against the Roman pontiffs, seem to apply themselves above all to censuring and defaming their

Editors' notes and page, col. 1348

Page

running head: TICORUM BAPTISMATE. 1348
marginal letters: A S. Paulus R.; B servantur. » Una; C gumenta, seu potius; D ditionem, illisque denuntiavit
old-edition numerals: 1296 before Martyrologium
other: three full-width lines across cols. 1347-1348 not set: Appendix ad Vitam S. Stephani Romani Pontificis et Martyris in qua ipsius contra S. Cyprianum / aliosque rebaptizantes agendi ratio veterum testimoniis a quorumdam neotericorum calumniis / vindicatur.; editors' matter: S. Paulus... illo- (entire column); words split at column breaks: ditionem (traditionem), illo-
other: the 1 paragraph(s) of this column above the full-width band are set under col 1347 (reading order, moved on receipt)
other: the word illorum was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1349
running head: 1347 DE HAERETICORUM BAPTISMATE. 1348
marginal letters: D ‹ditionem, illisque denuntiavit sese ab illorum com-› (left: ‹S. Stephanus, ut vidimus, in causa baptismatis›)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 3:1349

actis vituperandis ac diffamandis potissimum incumbere videntur, neoterici nimirum, quos impugnamus, hanc Stephani contra rebaptizantes agendi rationem vellicare, et quo possunt dente carpere non cessant: duram, intempestivam, praecipitem et iniquam esse vociferantur. Stephanum praecipiendo ac excommunicationis minas intentando et suae potestatis limites praetergressum fuisse, et immoderatae ac iniquae severitatis specimina dedisse contendunt, Stephani zelum damnant tanquam ad omnia devastanda unice conducibilem; verbo dicam, sanctissimum pontificem impotentioris dominatus tumidique fastus, imo tyrannidis et ecclesiarum oppressionis insimulare non erubescunt.

acts, namely the moderns whom we attack, do not cease to pluck at this manner of acting of Stephen against the rebaptizers, and to carp at it with all the tooth they can: they vociferate that it was harsh, unseasonable, precipitate, and unfair. They contend that Stephen in commanding and holding out threats of excommunication both transgressed the limits of his power, and gave proofs of immoderate and unfair severity; they condemn the zeal of Stephen as uniquely conducive to devastating all things; to say it in a word, they do not blush to accuse the most holy pontiff of unbridled domination and swelling pride, nay, of tyranny and oppression of the churches.

Verum quam sane diversum SS. Patrum ac veterum omnium de Stephano judicium, quam validum ad vindicandum ab iis calumniis aequam et sapientem Stephani contra rebaptizantes agendi rationem.

Yet how altogether different is the judgement of the holy Fathers and of all the ancients concerning Stephen, how valid for vindicating from those calumnies the fair and wise manner of acting of Stephen against the rebaptizers!

I. Etenim perlegantur veterum omnium cum Graecorum, tum Latinorum, qui res pacata ac serena mente considerabant monumenta. Perlegatur strenuus ille Ecclesiae traditionum vindex episcopus Cypriano coaevus, cujus modestia et humilitas nomen nobis invidit, in suo qui incipit: « Non debere denuo baptizari, etc. » tractatu; consule Dionysium Alexandrinum, Eusebium Caesariensem, Hieronymum, Augustinum, Vincentium Lirinensem, Facundum Hermianensem, V. Bedam, Nicephorum Callistum, Georgium Syncellum; volvantur et ipsorum Donatistarum scripta, et si qui sunt alii, qui de agitata Stephanum inter et Cyprianum circa haereticorum baptisma quaestione verba fecerint; hi profecto quid hinc et inde in hoc dissidio gestum fuerit non ignorabant, sicuti notum omnibus erat Stephanum in hac causa praecepisse ac minas excommunicationis rebaptizantibus intentasse, ita ex illis quamplures id passim testantur; attamen nemo Stephanum non dico inhumanitatis aut tyrannidis, sed vel minimae severitatis erga Cyprianum, et alios insimulat, nemo aliquid in Stephani agendi ratione deprehendere valuit, quod ulla censura vel animadversione dignum sibi videretur. Et certe si tale aliquid observassent memorati scriptores, illud profecto minime suppressissent, nec Stephano magis quam Cypriano, cujus tanta agnoscebant et praedicabant merita, pepercissent,

I. For let the monuments of all the ancients, both Greek and Latin, who considered things with a peaceful and serene mind, be read through. Let that strenuous defender of the traditions of the Church, the bishop contemporary with Cyprian, whose modesty and humility has begrudged us his name, be read through in his treatise which begins: "That those ought not to be baptized anew, etc."; consult Dionysius of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, Jerome, Augustine, Vincent of Lérins, Facundus of Hermiane, the Venerable Bede, Nicephorus Callistus, George Syncellus; let the writings of the Donatists themselves also be unrolled, and if there are any others who have spoken concerning the question agitated between Stephen and Cyprian about the baptism of heretics; these men assuredly were not ignorant of what had been done on this side and on that in this disagreement; just as it was known to all that Stephen had commanded in this cause and had held out threats of excommunication against the rebaptizers, so very many of them everywhere testify to this; nevertheless no one accuses Stephen, I do not say of inhumanity or tyranny, but even of the least severity towards Cyprian and the others; no one was able to discover anything in Stephen's manner of acting which seemed to him worthy of any censure or animadversion. And assuredly if the aforesaid writers had observed anything such, they would by no means have suppressed it, nor would they have spared Stephen more than Cyprian, whose so great merits they recognized and proclaimed,

Editors' notes and page, col. 1349

Footnotes

(97) ‹anchor: denuo baptizari, etc. » tractatu› · call in col 1349

Tractatus qui incipit his verbis : Non debere denuo baptizari qui semel in nomine Jesu Christi sint tincti, ex concessione Jacobi Sirmondi primum a Nicolao Rigaltio editus post Cypriani ad Pompeium epistolam, deinde a Philippo Labbæo, t. I Concilior. postea ab Anglis Cypriani operum editoribus inter opuscula Cypriano vulgo adscripta, anonymum licet habeat auctorem, magnam tamen apud eruditos obtinet auctoritatem. Si enim auctoris scopum attendas, in controversia baptismatis hæreticor. Ecclesiæ causam contra Cyprianum ejusque asseclas viriliter propugnabat ; si ejus personam et antiquitatem, erat episcopus Cypriano coævus ut merito observant ex ipsis Gallis Tillemont., Hist. eccles., t. IV, pag. 152 et 629 ; Fleuriacus, Hist. eccles., tom. II. l. VII, c. 31, p. 278 ; Dupin. Bibl. eccles., t. I, p. 531 ; Natalis Alexand. Hist. eccles., t. III, p. 691 ; et, t. V, p. 488 et 495 ; Turnelius. de Sacramentis, p. 375 : Baillet, in Vitis sanctorum ad diem 2 Augusti, p. 20 ; Defensor declar. Cleri Gallic. 1682, t. 2, p. 266. P. Gervasius, in Vita S. Cypriani. p. 422 et seq. D. Maran in Baluziana Cypriani Operum editione præfat., p. 126 ; D. Ceillier. Benedict. Histor Sacrorum auctor., t. III, p. 134, et alii quamplures,

The treatise that begins with the words "That those who have once been dipped in the name of Jesus Christ ought not to be baptized again" was first published, by leave of Jacques Sirmond, by Nicolas Rigault after Cyprian's letter to Pompeius, then by Philippe Labbe in vol. I of the Councils, and later by the English editors of Cyprian's works among the small works commonly ascribed to Cyprian. Although its author is anonymous, it carries great authority among the learned. For if you consider the author's aim, he manfully championed the Church's cause against Cyprian and his followers in the controversy over heretics' baptism; if you consider his person and age, he was a bishop contemporary with Cyprian, as is rightly observed, from among the French themselves, by Tillemont, Ecclesiastical History, vol. IV, pp. 152 and 629; Fleury, Ecclesiastical History, vol. II, book VII, chapter 31, p. 278; Dupin, Ecclesiastical Library, vol. I, p. 531; Noël Alexandre, Ecclesiastical History, vol. III, p. 691, and vol. V, pp. 488 and 495; Tournély, On the Sacraments, p. 375; Baillet, in the Lives of the Saints, under 2 August, p. 20; the Defender of the Declaration of the Gallican Clergy of 1682, vol. 2, p. 266; Father Gervaise, in the Life of St Cyprian, p. 422 ff.; Dom Maran, in the preface to the Baluze edition of Cyprian's works, p. 126; Dom Ceillier, Benedictine, History of the Sacred Authors, vol. III, p. 134; and very many others.

(printed under page 726)

(98) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1350)

Epist ad Bevilaquam 15.

Letter 15, to Bevilacqua.

(printed under page 726)

Page

running head: 1349 PARS II. — RECENTIORUM
marginal letters: A (in col. 1350); B (in col. 1350); C (in col. 1350); D (in col. 1350)
old-edition numerals: 1297 before Eusebium
other: editors' matter: rum actis... peper- (entire column); words split at column breaks: rum (illorum), peper-
other: the word pepercissent, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1350

PL 3:1350

in quo tamen fuisse aliquid culpandum, aliquid corrigendum, manifestare veriti non sunt Quanta apud veteres Cypriani existimatio! Quot Cypriani panegyristae! Quot Cypriani defensores! innumeros fere congessit Launoius; illorum tamen nec unus Cypriano intempestivam et minus rectam pronuntianti Stephani agendi rationem suffragatur, nullus Cypriano hac in parte astipulatur; nullus Cypriani sequitur judicium, nullus Cyprianum eam ob causam excusat, quod Stephanus in ipsum severius sese gesserit. Quantum Augustini in elevandis ac minuendis Cypriani erratis studium! Quantus ardor! quanta propensio! Nullibi tamen adoptat quae Cyprianus pro sui defensione contra Stephanum effuderat, nullibi intempestivum subindicat Stephani zelum, ut nimiae Cypriani in ipsum commotionis culpam imminuat. Uno verbo veterum nemo intempestivam aut severam, aut minus sapientem dixit Stephani adversus rebaptizantes agendi rationem, nullus in Stephano aliquid reprehendendum invenit. Qui autem Stephani agendi rationem vellicassent aut improbassent illi qui ipsam, quando opus fuit, celebrare ac commendare non omiserunt, ut modo videbimus?

in whom nevertheless they did not fear to manifest that there was something to be blamed, something to be corrected. How great was the esteem of Cyprian among the ancients! How many panegyrists of Cyprian! How many defenders of Cyprian! Launoy has heaped together almost innumerable ones; yet of them not a single one votes for Cyprian when pronouncing Stephen's manner of acting unseasonable and less right; no one agrees with Cyprian in this matter; no one follows the judgement of Cyprian; no one excuses Cyprian for that reason, that Stephen bore himself too severely towards him. How great is the zeal of Augustine in extenuating and diminishing the mistakes of Cyprian! How great his ardour! how great his propensity! Yet nowhere does he adopt the things which Cyprian had poured forth for his own defence against Stephen; nowhere does he hint that the zeal of Stephen was unseasonable, in order to diminish the blame of Cyprian's excessive emotion against him. In a word, no one of the ancients called Stephen's manner of acting against the rebaptizers unseasonable, or severe, or less wise; no one found anything to be rebuked in Stephen. And how could those have plucked at or disapproved Stephen's manner of acting, who did not omit to celebrate and commend it when there was need, as we shall presently see?

II. « Graviter revera Cypriano succensebat » Stephanus, quando ipsi praecepit ac denuntiavit se ab illius communione discessurum si in sua sententia persisteret; at de hac gravi Stephani succensione quid putarunt tot per orbem universum episcopi, qui pro sana Ecclesiae doctrina cum ipso contra rebaptizantes militabant? Illamne credebant incongruam aut intempestivam? Numquid in eo tantum Stephano suffragabantur, quod antiquam Ecclesiae traditionem teneret, non vero in eo quod gravius Cypriano aliisque rebaptizantibus succenseret? Id quidem excogitarunt recentiores nonnulli; at nemine antiquorum refragante testatur Augustinus totam illam episcoporum multitudinem cum Stephano non tantum baptismum Christi in nullo iterandum esse censente, sed « et hoc facientibus graviter succensente sensisse: » libro enim de uno baptismo, contra Petilianum, cap. 15: « Stephanus, inquit, baptismum Christi in nullo iterandum esse censebat et hoc facientibus graviter succensebat; Cyprianus autem in haeresi vel schismate baptizatos tanquam non habentes baptismum Christi baptizandos in Ecclesia catholica existimabat: multi cum illo, quidam cum

II. Stephen "was in truth heavily indignant with Cyprian" when he commanded him and gave notice that he would depart from his communion if he persisted in his opinion; yet concerning this heavy indignation of Stephen what did so many bishops throughout the universal world think, who fought with him for the sound doctrine of the Church against the rebaptizers? Did they believe it incongruous or unseasonable? Did they vote for Stephen in this only, that he held the ancient tradition of the Church, and not in this, that he was heavily indignant with Cyprian and the other rebaptizers? Some more recent writers indeed have devised this; yet with no one of the ancients gainsaying it, Augustine testifies that that whole multitude of bishops agreed with Stephen not only when judging that the baptism of Christ must be repeated in no one, but "also when being heavily indignant with those who did this": for in the book On the One Baptism against Petilian, chapter 15, he says: "Stephen judged that the baptism of Christ must be repeated in no one, and was heavily indignant with those who did this; whereas Cyprian thought that those baptized in heresy or schism, as not having the baptism of Christ, must be baptized in the Catholic Church: many thought with the former, some with

Editors' notes and page, col. 1350

Footnotes

(99) ‹anchor: Cypriano succensebat » Stephanus› · call in col 1350

Augustin., lib. un. contra Petiliam. c. 14.

Augustine, the single book against Petilian [printed "Petiliam"], chapter 14.

(printed under page 726)

Page

running head: RECENTIORUM EXCURSUS. 1350
marginal letters: A cissent, in quo; B indicat Stephani zelum,; C debant incongruam aut; D tes baptismum Christi
old-edition numerals: 1298 before suffragabantur,
other: editors' matter: cissent, in... cum (entire column); word split from preceding column: cissent (pepercissent)

PL 3:1351

isto etiam sentiebant. » Quot autem cum Stephano fuerint qui multi hic ab Augustino dicuntur, significat ipse scribens contra Cresconium, lib. III, cap. 3: « Proinde, inquit, si omnino jam credendum sit quinquaginta episcopis Orientalium id visum esse, quod septuaginta Afris vel aliquanto etiam pluribus contra tot millia episcoporum quibus hic error in toto orbe displicuit. »

the latter also." Now how many were with Stephen, who are here called "many" by Augustine, he himself signifies when writing Against Cresconius, book 3, chapter 3: "Accordingly, says he, if it must now altogether be believed that this seemed good to fifty bishops of the Easterns, which seemed good to seventy Africans or even somewhat more, against so many thousands of bishops to whom this error was displeasing in the whole world."

Ante Augustinum tradiderat S. Dionysius Alexandrinus Stephani judicium, quo volebat rebaptizantes qui in sua sententia persisterent, excommunicandos esse, fuisse simul judicium et sententiam reliquorum episcoporum, teste Eusebio, lib. VII Histor., c. 5, apud Valesium: « ad hunc (Xystum B. pontificem) Dionysius secundam de baptismo scripsit epistolam, in qua Stephani simul et reliquorum episcoporum sententiam ac judicium exponit; » quale autem fuerit Stephani, quod simul reliquorum erat episcoporum judicium, quae immediate sequuntur haec manifestant verba: « De Stephano ita scribens; ante quidem litteras scripserat de Heleno et Firmiliano, de omnibus denique sacerdotibus per Ciliciam, Cappadociam, cunctasque finitimas provincias constitutis, sese ob eam causam ab illorum communione discessurum quod haereticos baptizarent. »

Before Augustine, St. Dionysius of Alexandria had handed down that the judgement of Stephen, whereby he wished that the rebaptizers who persisted in their opinion should be excommunicated, was at the same time the judgement and opinion of the rest of the bishops, as Eusebius testifies, book 7 of the History, chapter 5, in Valois: "To him (Xystus, the blessed pontiff) Dionysius wrote a second letter concerning baptism, wherein he sets forth the opinion and judgement of Stephen and at the same time of the rest of the bishops"; and of what sort the judgement of Stephen was, which was at the same time that of the rest of the bishops, these words which immediately follow manifest: "Writing thus concerning Stephen: previously indeed he had written letters concerning Helenus and Firmilian, and finally concerning all the priests set throughout Cilicia, Cappadocia, and all the neighbouring provinces, that he would depart from their communion for that reason, because they baptized heretics."

Idem testatur et Nicephorus Callistus his verbis: « Ad Xystum secundam de baptismo epistolam Dionysius dedit, Stephani et reliquorum judicium in ea ostendens: scripserat namque prius de Heleno et Firmiliano se cum illis non communicaturum eam ipsam ob causam quod haereticos rebaptizarent. »

The same thing Nicephorus Callistus also testifies in these words: "To Xystus Dionysius gave a second letter concerning baptism, showing in it the judgement of Stephen and of the rest: for he had written previously concerning Helenus and Firmilian that he would not communicate with them for that very reason, because they rebaptized heretics."

Vincentius etiam Lirinensis Stephanum Cypriano restitisse tradit, nec ignorabat quo pacto Stephanus restitisset, praecipiendo videlicet, ac minas excommunicationis intentando, quandoquidem Stephani ad Africanos epistolam refert; attamen huic Stephani intercessioni caeteros undique complausisse Praesules affirmat his verbis: « Stephanus apostolicae Sedis antistes cum caeteris quidem collegis suis, sed tamen prae caeteris restitit. »

Vincent of Lérins also hands down that Stephen withstood Cyprian, nor was he ignorant in what way Stephen had withstood him, namely by commanding and holding out threats of excommunication, seeing that he reports the letter of Stephen to the Africans; nevertheless he affirms that the rest of the Prelates on all sides applauded this interposition of Stephen, in these words: "Stephen, prelate of the Apostolic See, together indeed with the rest of his colleagues, yet beyond the rest, withstood it."

III. Censuit S. Stephanus rebaptizandos non esse haereticos, insuper arbitratus est Cyprianum aliosque rebaptizantes non esse ferendos, ideoque sese ab illorum communione discessurum, si persisterent, scripsit. Quid Ecclesia? Stephani sententiam in utroque probavit et tenuit: « Beatus Stephanus, » inquit Facundus Hermianensis episcopus lib. contra Mocianum, « continuo Cypriano denuntiavit quod si hoc auderent haereticos rebaptizare), ab Ecclesia pellerentur: et Stephani potius quam Cypriani sententiam tenet Ecclesia, non solum de non rebaptizandis haereticis, verum etiam de rebaptizantibus non ferendis. » Damnetur igitur Stephanus a neotericis, tyrannus et immanis ecclesiarum oppressor ab ipsis vocetur, qui rebaptizantes

III. St. Stephen judged that heretics must not be rebaptized; moreover he supposed that Cyprian and the other rebaptizers must not be tolerated, and therefore wrote that he would depart from their communion if they persisted. What did the Church do? She approved and held the opinion of Stephen in both points: "Blessed Stephen," says Facundus, bishop of Hermiane, in the book Against Mocianus, "straightway gave notice to Cyprian that if they dared this (to rebaptize heretics), they should be driven from the Church: and the Church holds the opinion of Stephen rather than of Cyprian, not only concerning not rebaptizing heretics, but also concerning not tolerating rebaptizers." Let Stephen therefore be condemned by the moderns, let him be called by them a tyrant and a monstrous oppressor of the churches, who judged that rebaptizers

Editors' notes and page, col. 1351

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: hæreticos rebaptizarent› · call in col 1351

Histor. eccles., lib. VI, c. 7, edit. Paris. 1603.

Ecclesiastical History, book VI, chapter 7, Paris edition, 1603.

(printed under page 727)

(2) ‹anchor: epistolam refert› · call in col 1351

Commonit., c. 9.

Commonitorium, chapter 9.

(printed under page 727)

(3) ‹anchor: præ cæteris restitit› · call in col 1351

Ibid.

Same place.

(printed under page 727)

Page

running head: 1351 DE HAERETICORUM BA
marginal letters: A (in col. 1352); B (in col. 1352); C (in col. 1352); D (in col. 1352)
old-edition numerals: 1299 before rebaptizantes
other: unmatched closing parenthesis after rebaptizare); editors' matter: isto etiam... reba- (entire column); word split at end of column: reba-
other: the word rebaptizantes was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1352

PL 3:1352

non esse ferendos censuit; graviori absolvetur judicio, ab ipsa Ecclesia vindicabitur, quae illius sententiam « etiam de rebaptizantibus non ferendis » tenuit et probavit.

must not be tolerated; he will be acquitted by a weightier judgement, he will be vindicated by the Church herself, who held and approved his opinion "concerning not tolerating rebaptizers also."

IV. Stephani ad Cyprianum rescriptum, in quo praecipiebat antiquam servari consuetudinem, superbum profecto, vel injuriarum plenum, aut Cypriano contumeliosum nec censuit omnium ecclesiarum mater et magistra Romana Ecclesia, quae illius rescripti memoriam tanquam S. Stephano gloriosissimam quotannis die 2 Augusti proponit in Breviario Romano his verbis: « Baptizatos ab haereticis iterum baptizari vetuit (S. Stephanus) rescribens S. Cypriano verbis illis: Nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum est. »

IV. The rescript of Stephen to Cyprian, wherein he commanded the ancient custom to be kept, the Roman Church, mother and mistress of all churches, did not judge proud assuredly, or full of injuries, or contumelious to Cyprian, seeing that she proposes the memory of that rescript every year on the 2nd of August in the Roman Breviary as most glorious to St. Stephen, in these words: "(St. Stephen) forbade those baptized by heretics to be baptized a second time, writing back to St. Cyprian in those words: Let nothing be innovated save what has been handed down."

V. De Stephani rescripto quid censuerit episcopus anonymus qui Cypriani novitatem tunc temporis impugnavit, ipse nobis aperit his verbis: « In quo genere quaestionis (de baptismo haereticorum), ut mihi videtur, nulla omnino potuisset controversia aut disceptatio emergere, si unusquisque nostrum contentus venerabili ecclesiarum omnium auctoritate et necessaria humilitate nihil innovare gestiret. » Cedo, an non satis aperte hic laudat S. Stephani praeceptum illud: « Nihil innovetur? » idque non ut suo tantum judicio justum, sed « et venerabili ecclesiarum omnium auctoritate » ita comprobatum, ut « unusquisque necessaria pollens humilitate » illi acquiescere « contentus » ac modestus debuisset? Sane (eruditi viri verbis utor) nihil in mandante carpit, qui solam in subditis « humilitatem » desiderat et quidem « necessariam: » imo tantum illius aequitatem extollit, quantum horum contumaciam carpit, dum istos « inanis gloriae, audaciae, temeritatis, » etc., accusat, ut in ipso tractatus aditu videri potest. Si ergo episcopo, qui suismet oculis observabantur referenti fides adhibenda, vides Cypriano aliisque rebaptizationis novitatem introducentibus adversam tunc fuisse « venerabilem ecclesiarum omnium auctoritatem. » Quia nimirum Stephani praecipientis auctoritatem omnes illae ecclesiae assentiendo et approbando suam fecerant. Ex quo patet Stephani praeceptum justum, aequumque illis omnibus ecclesiis visum fuisse. Quare etiam Cypriano tanta juxta auctorem nostrum nil in causo baptismatis haereticorum innovandi « humilitas erat necessaria, » nisi quia Stephanus praeceperat, ne aliquid in ea quaestione innovaretur? Ex quo iterum apparet quanta fuerit apud citatum auctorem lati a Stephano praecepti vis ac aequitas.

V. What the anonymous bishop who at that time attacked the novelty of Cyprian judged concerning the rescript of Stephen, he himself opens to us in these words: "In which kind of question (concerning the baptism of heretics), as it seems to me, no controversy or debate at all could have emerged, if each one of us, content with the venerable authority of all the churches and with necessary humility, desired to innovate nothing." Pray tell, does he not here openly enough praise that command of St. Stephen: "Let nothing be innovated"? and that not as just in his own judgement alone, but as so approved "by the venerable authority of all the churches also," that "each one strong in necessary humility" ought to have been "content" and modest to acquiesce in it? Assuredly (I use the words of a learned man) he carps at nothing in him who commands, who requires in the subjects only "humility," and indeed "necessary" humility: nay, he extols the equity of the former as much as he carps at the contumacy of the latter, while he accuses them of "vainglory, audacity, rashness," etc., as may be seen in the very entrance of the treatise. If therefore credit must be given to a bishop reporting things which were observed with his own eyes, you see that "the venerable authority of all the churches" was then adverse to Cyprian and the others who introduced the novelty of rebaptism: namely because all those churches by assenting and approving had made the authority of Stephen commanding their own. From which it is plain that the command of Stephen seemed just and fair to all those churches. Wherefore also was so great "humility necessary" for Cyprian, according to our author, of innovating nothing in the cause of the baptism of heretics, save because Stephen had commanded that nothing should be innovated in that question? From which again it appears how great with the cited author was the force and equity of the command pronounced by Stephen.

VI. Nec Stephanum quod rebaptizantibus excommunicationem comminatus fuerit improbabant nobiles duo Ecclesiae Romanae praesbyteri Dionysius, et Philemon, qui teste Dionysio Alexandrino hoc idem cum Stephano sentiebant: « Antea quidem, »

VI. Nor did the two noble presbyters of the Roman Church, Dionysius and Philemon, disapprove Stephen because he had threatened excommunication against the rebaptizers, seeing that, as Dionysius of Alexandria testifies, they thought this same thing with Stephen: "Previously indeed,"

Editors' notes and page, col. 1352

Footnotes

(4) ‹anchor: gestiret› · call in col 1352

In tractatu qui incipit his verbis : Non debere denuo, etc. jam supra citato.

In the treatise beginning with the words "Non debere denuo", etc., already cited above.

(printed under page 727)

Page

running head: TICORUM BAPTISMATE. 1352
marginal letters: A ptizantes non esse; B pus anonymus qui; C militatem » desiderat; D quia Stephanus praeceperat,
old-edition numerals: 1300 after humilitas
other: editors' matter: ptizantes non... quidem, » (entire column); word split from preceding column: ptizantes (rebaptizantes)

PL 3:1353

inquit Dionysius Alexand. apud Euseb., l. VII Hist. c. 5, « litteras scripserat (Stephanus) de Heleno et de Firmiliano » aliisque Orientalibus « sese ab illorum communione discessurum, quod haereticos rebaptizarent. At vide, quaeso, gravitatem negotii; revera enim in maximis, ut audio, episcoporum conciliis, decretum est, ut qui ab haereticis ad catholicam Ecclesiam accedunt primum catechumeni fierent, ac deinde veteris et impuri fermenti sordibus per baptismum purgarentur. De his omnibus ego ad illum epistolam misi rogans atque obtestans, sed et charissimis, inquit, fratribus compresbyteris nostris Dionysio et Philemoni qui prius idem cum Stephano sentiebant, deque iisdem rebus ad me scripserant, scripsi. » Dionysium et Philemonem Stephano rebaptizantibus excommunicationem minitanti « suffragatores » fuisse testimonio Dionysii Alexand. refert etiam Nicephorus Callistus: quanti autem ponderis sit Philemonis et praesertim Dionysii Romani pro Stephano suffragium satis ostendunt, quae SS. Patres ac praecipue S. Basilius et Athanasius pro celebranda Dionysii Romani « fidei integritate, doctrina, eruditione, sapientia aliisque virtutibus, » cumularunt elogia, satis ostendunt quae Eusebius post Dionysium Alexandrinum de illo nobis tradidit lib. VII Hist., cap. 7, his verbis: « Hunc ipsum Dionysium Romanum eruditissimum (adhuc presbyterum) planeque admirandum virum fuisse testimonio Dionysii Alexandrini licet cognoscere; » ac tandem ex eo dignosci etiam potest, quod Petri cathedram post Xystum II occupare meruerit.

says Dionysius of Alexandria in Eusebius, book 7 of the History, chapter 5, "he (Stephen) had written letters concerning Helenus and concerning Firmilian" and the other Easterns, "that he would depart from their communion because they rebaptized heretics. Now see, I pray, the weightiness of the business; for in truth in the greatest councils of bishops, as I hear, it has been decreed that those who approach the Catholic Church from heretics should first become catechumens, and next be cleansed by baptism from the filth of the old and impure leaven. Concerning all these things I sent a letter to him, entreating and beseeching him; and I wrote also, says he, to our dearest brethren and fellow-presbyters Dionysius and Philemon, who previously thought the same with Stephen, and had written to me concerning the same matters." That Dionysius and Philemon were "supporters" of Stephen when threatening excommunication against the rebaptizers, Nicephorus Callistus also relates on the testimony of Dionysius of Alexandria: now of how great weight the vote of Philemon and especially of Dionysius of Rome for Stephen is, the eulogies which the holy Fathers, and chiefly St. Basil and Athanasius, heaped up for celebrating the "integrity of faith, doctrine, erudition, wisdom, and other virtues" of Dionysius of Rome sufficiently show; the things which Eusebius after Dionysius of Alexandria has handed down to us concerning him in book 7 of the History, chapter 7, sufficiently show in these words: "That this very Dionysius of Rome (while still a presbyter) was a most learned and altogether admirable man, we may know by the testimony of Dionysius of Alexandria"; and finally it can also be discerned from this, that he deserved to occupy the Chair of Peter after Xystus II.

VII. Dionysius Alexandrinus ad Stephanum per litteras sequester accessit quidem « rogans atque obtestans » ut a ferenda excommunicationis sententia abstineret, ideoque ne quod ipsis interminatus fuerat, « sese nimirum ab illorum communione discessurum, » exsecutioni demandaret. Fusas a Dionysio preces Stephani voluntati consonas fuisse constat ex Augustino, qui saepius testatur Stephanum cum Cypriano pacem et charitatem conservasse, et consequenter intra solas excommunicationis minas stetisse nec ulterius progressum fuisse. At intempestivas fuisse has Stephani minas nullatenus asserit Dionysius, et profecto si tales illas existimasset, eadem libertate, qua ipsi significabat exsecutioni non esse demandandas, ipsi pariter aperuisset immaturas ac minus aequas fuisse, idque eo magis, quod si adversariis nostris credimus, rebaptizantibus ipse suffragabatur; imo justas aeque ac providas illas Stephani minas sibi visas esse satis indicat, cum solis precibus illarum exsecutionem avertere tentaverit.

VII. Dionysius of Alexandria approached Stephen indeed as a mediator by letter, "entreating and beseeching" that he would abstain from pronouncing sentence of excommunication, and therefore that he would not commit to execution what he had threatened against them, "namely that he would depart from their communion." That the prayers poured forth by Dionysius were consonant with the will of Stephen is established from Augustine, who quite often testifies that Stephen preserved peace and charity with Cyprian, and consequently stood within threats of excommunication alone and did not advance further. Yet that these threats of Stephen were unseasonable Dionysius in no way asserts; and assuredly if he had thought them such, with the same liberty wherewith he signified to him that they ought not to be committed to execution, he would equally have opened to him that they were premature and less fair, and that all the more because, if we believe our adversaries, he himself voted for the rebaptizers; nay, he sufficiently indicates that those threats of Stephen seemed to him equally just and provident, since he attempted to avert their execution by prayers alone.

VIII. Eusebius Caesariensts, qui ex Dionysio perceperat et in sua Historia inseruerat Stephanum rebaptizantibus significasse « sese ab illorum communione

VIII. Eusebius of Caesarea, who had learned from Dionysius and had inserted in his History that Stephen had signified to the rebaptizers "that from their communion

Editors' notes and page, col. 1353

Footnotes

(5) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1353)

Histor., l. VI, c, 7, apud Fronton. Duc. p., 398.

History, book VI, chapter 7, in Fronton du Duc's edition, p. 398.

(printed under page 728)

(6) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1353)

Epist. 220.

Letter 220.

(printed under page 728)

(7) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1354)

De Synod. pag. 918.

On the Synods, p. 918.

(printed under page 728)

(8) ‹anchor: nec ulterius progressum fuisse› · call in col 1353

Lib. V. de Bap. contr. Donat. c. 25, et aliis in locis supra citatis.

Book V of On Baptism, against the Donatists, chapter 25, and in the other places cited above.

(printed under page 728)

Page

running head: 1353 PARS II. — RECENTIORU
marginal letters: A (in col. 1354); B (in col. 1354); C (in col. 1354); D (in col. 1354)
old-edition numerals: 1301 before minus
other: editors' matter: inquit Dionysius... com- (entire column); word split at end of column: com-
other: the word communione was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1354

PL 3:1354

discessurum, » recte scribit « gravissime ipsum tulisse, » aliquid a Cypriano, aliisque circa haereticorum baptismum innovari. At nedum Stephanum aliquatenus reprehendat quod id « gravissime tulerit, » eam affert hujusce Stephani agendi rationis causam, quae illius aequitatem apprime demonstret; Stephanus enim juxta Eusebium id gravissime tulit, quia ratus fuerat nil adversus antiquam Ecclesiae traditionem esse innovandum; « Cyprianus, inquit, l. VII Hist., c. 3, nonnisi per baptismum ab errore prius emundatos admittendos esse censuit. Verum Stephanus nihil adversus traditionem quae jam inde ab ultimis temporibus obtinuerat innovandum ratus, gravissime id tulit. » Quid porro aequius ac sapientius novitatem antiquae Ecclesiae traditioni contrariam gravissime ferre.

he would depart," rightly writes "that he bore it most heavily" that anything was innovated by Cyprian and the others concerning the baptism of heretics. Yet so far from rebuking Stephen in any way because "he bore this most heavily," he brings forward that cause of this manner of acting of Stephen which exceedingly demonstrates its equity; for Stephen, according to Eusebius, bore this most heavily because he had judged that nothing ought to be innovated against the ancient tradition of the Church: "Cyprian, says he, book VII of the History, chapter 3, judged that they ought not to be admitted unless first cleansed from their error through baptism. Yet Stephen, judging that nothing ought to be innovated against the tradition which had obtained even from the remotest times, bore this most heavily." Now what is fairer and wiser than to bear most heavily a novelty contrary to the ancient tradition of the Church?

IX. Quid etiam de Stephano senserit S. Hieronymus percipitur ex suo adversus Luciferianos Dialogo, in quo non semel de exorta S. Stephanum inter et S. Cyprianum in causa baptismi haereticorum concertatione meminit. Ibi ergo « Stephanum a Cypriano laceratum » fuisse scribit, at Cyprianum a Stephano minus bene habitum sicuti non censuit, ita nec tradidit; imo Stephani constantiae ac zelo ascribit, quod irriti fuerint Cypriani pro mutanda antiqua Ecclesiae traditione conatus « Conatus est, inquit, beatus Cyprianus contritos lacus fugere ac bibere de aqua aliena, et idcirco haereticorum baptisma reprobans ad Stephanum tunc Romanae urbis episcopum super hac re Africanam synodum direxit, sed conatus ejus frustra fuit. »

IX. What St. Jerome also thought concerning Stephen is perceived from his Dialogue against the Luciferians, wherein he more than once makes mention of the controversy arisen between St. Stephen and St. Cyprian in the cause of the baptism of heretics. There accordingly he writes that "Stephen was torn by Cyprian," whereas that Cyprian was ill treated by Stephen, just as he did not judge, so neither did he hand down; nay, he ascribes it to the constancy and zeal of Stephen that the endeavours of Cyprian for changing the ancient tradition of the Church were in vain: "Blessed Cyprian, says he, endeavoured to flee broken cisterns and not to drink of strange water, and therefore reprobating the baptism of heretics he directed an African synod upon this matter to Stephen, then bishop of the city of Rome, yet his endeavour was in vain."

Atque adeo frustra rebaptizantes Stephanum rogarunt, ut juxta S. Doctorem suum errorem deposuerint et antiquato veteri novum emiserint decretum; pergit enim: « Denique illi episcopi (Africani) qui rebaptizandos haereticos cum eo (Cypriano) statuerant ad antiquam consuetudinem revoluti novum emisere decretum. » En quid lucrati sint Africani ad Stephanum confugientes. An, quaeso, Stephani in Africanos agendi rationem vituperare potuisset Hieronymus, ex qua tantum Africani ac universa Ecclesia lucrum percepissent? Tandem concludit S. Doctor post verba modo citata: « Quid facimus? Ita et nobis majores nostri, et illis sui tradidere majores. » Ex quibus Hieronymi verbis, intelligis imitandum ab ipso Luciferianis proponi Stephani zelum ac studium in conservandis ac posteritati transmittendis, quae ipse a suis majoribus acceperat; ex quo rursus colligitur quam fuerit alienus S. Doctor ab illorum sententia, qui Stephani zelum traducunt, ut praecipitem, ac ad omnia devastanda unice idoneum.

And so much in vain did the rebaptizers ask Stephen, that according to the holy Doctor they laid aside their error, and repealing the old decree, issued a new one; for he continues: "Finally those (African) bishops who had determined with him (Cyprian) that heretics must be rebaptized, returning to the ancient custom, issued a new decree." Behold what the Africans gained by having recourse to Stephen! Could Jerome, I pray, have blamed Stephen's manner of acting towards the Africans, from which the Africans and the universal Church had received so great a gain? Finally the holy Doctor concludes after the words just cited: "What do we do? Thus both our ancestors handed down to us, and their ancestors to them." From which words of Jerome you understand that the zeal and study of Stephen in preserving and transmitting to posterity the things which he himself had received from his ancestors is proposed by him for imitation to the Luciferians; from which again is gathered how alien the holy Doctor was from the opinion of those who traduce the zeal of Stephen as precipitate and uniquely suited for devastating all things.

X. Pro Cypriano defendendo ac excusando proniorem ac illustriorem Augustino neminem

X. For defending and excusing Cyprian antiquity displays no one more prone and more illustrious than Augustine;

Editors' notes and page, col. 1354

Page

running head: RECENTIORUM EXCURSUS. 1354
marginal letters: A munione discessurum, »; B ferre.; C canam synodum direxit; D tradidere majores. »
old-edition numerals: 1302 after niorem
other: editors' matter: munione discessurum... neminem (entire column); word split from preceding column: munione (communione)

PL 3:1355

ostentat antiquitas; quot in eo fuerint Augustini conatus, qui zelus, qui ardor, quae facundia atque constantia, solus ignorat qui in ipsius scriptis hospes omnino sit; apprime noverat S. Doctor, qui ipse tradebat Stephanum Cypriano in causa baptismatis haereticorum « praecepisse ac ipsum abstinendum putasse. » Legerat et Cypriani ad Pompeium epistolam, in qua Stephani praeceptum et excommunicationis minas acriter perstringebat, ac illud quidem seu intempestivum et inconsideratum, istas vero seu minus aequas acrius exagitabat. Quare ergo Cypriano Stephani agendi rationem reprehendenti non assentitur? Quare Cypriani Stephano praecipienti inobsequentiam non excusat, quod intempestiva ac minus aequa in ipsum fuerit Stephani agendi ratio? Totus minuendis ac elevandis Cypriani erratis vacabat Augustinus. Nihil novi dixisset hanc excusationem afferendo. Jam praeiverat ipse Cyprianus, qui eamdem attulerat. Quare ergo Cypriani judicium, quod tanti faciebat, hac in parte non sequitur? Si vera loqui et audire placet. Talem non censuit Augustinus, qualem existimabat Cyprianus Stephani agendi rationem, alioquin quin pro suscepta Cypriani defensione tot alia allegavit et excogitavit, illud profecto non omisisset, quod Cyprianus ipse pro suo resistendi jure non semel adduxerat.

how many were the endeavours of Augustine therein, what his zeal, what his ardour, what his eloquence and constancy, he alone is ignorant who is altogether a stranger in his writings; the holy Doctor knew exceedingly well, seeing that he himself handed down that Stephen in the cause of the baptism of heretics "had commanded Cyprian and had thought that he ought to be excommunicated." He had read also the letter of Cyprian to Pompeius, wherein he sharply censured the command of Stephen and his threats of excommunication, and fiercely assailed the former indeed as unseasonable and inconsiderate, and the latter as less fair. Wherefore then does he not assent to Cyprian when rebuking Stephen's manner of acting? Wherefore does he not excuse Cyprian's disobedience to Stephen commanding, on the ground that Stephen's manner of acting towards him was unseasonable and less fair? Augustine was wholly occupied in diminishing and extenuating the mistakes of Cyprian. He would have said nothing new in bringing forward this excuse. Cyprian himself had already gone before, who had brought forward the same. Wherefore then does he not follow in this matter the judgement of Cyprian, which he valued so highly? If it pleases us to speak and hear the truth, Augustine did not judge Stephen's manner of acting to be such as Cyprian thought it; otherwise he who alleged and devised so many other things for the defence of Cyprian which he had undertaken, would assuredly not have omitted that which Cyprian himself had more than once adduced for his own right of resisting.

Tantum abest ut Cypriani in Stephani agendi rationem quasi minus aequam ac moderatam querelis assentiri se posse crediderit Augustinus, ut eas non posse nisi improbari significaverit, strenuissimus licet Cypriani defensor. Expendens enim Cypriani ad Pompeium epistolam, in qua et quidem sola Romani pontificis agendi rationem vellicabat Carthaginensis antistes, diserte pronuntiat ea omnia quae Cyprianus eo loci contra Stephanum scripserat, non hominis pacati ac sereni, sed « irritati » fuisse verba, quae minus sui compos non sobrie ac graviter protulerit, sed « effuderit; » imo ita moderationi, aequitati ac charitati parum consona, ut talia fuerint, « quae non levis sed perniciosae dissensionis periculum habuerunt; » ideoque nullatenus ea excusare, nedum probare valens, ea « praeterire melius esse » vir christiana charitate maxime praeditus pronuntiat: en Augustini verba: « Jam illa quae in Stephanum irritatus effudit (Cyprianus) retractare nolo, quia et non opus est: eadem quippe ipsa dicuntur quae jam satis discussa sunt, et ea praeterire melius est, quae perniciosae dissensionis periculum habuerunt. » Hiscene verbis Augustinus ostendit se Cypriano virilem Stephani agendi rationem carpenti suffragari? Itane significat S. Doctor illam sibi, sicuti Cypriano, intempestivam et minus aequam visam fuisse? quae autem Augustini verba exponimus, ea esse minime putes, quae ex aliis ejusdem S. Doctoris temperari possint. Id enim tantum loci, nec alibi, expendit expresse, quae Cyprianus in Stephanum effutiit,

So far was Augustine from believing that he could assent to the complaints of Cyprian against Stephen's manner of acting as less fair and moderate, that he signified that they could not but be disapproved, albeit he was the most strenuous defender of Cyprian. For weighing the letter of Cyprian to Pompeius, wherein, and indeed wherein alone, the prelate of Carthage plucked at the Roman pontiff's manner of acting, he expressly pronounces that all those things which Cyprian in that place had written against Stephen were the words not of a peaceful and serene man, but of one "irritated," which, being less master of himself, he did not utter soberly and gravely, but "poured forth"; nay, so little consonant with moderation, equity, and charity, that they were such "as held the danger not of a slight, but of a pernicious dissension"; and therefore being in no way able to excuse them, much less to approve them, the man most highly endowed with Christian charity pronounces that "it is better to pass them over": behold the words of Augustine: "Now those things which (Cyprian) irritated poured forth against Stephen I am unwilling to handle again, because there is no need either: for the very same things are said which have already been sufficiently discussed, and it is better to pass over those things which held the danger of a pernicious dissension." Does Augustine by these words show that he votes for Cyprian when carping at the manly manner of acting of Stephen? Does the holy Doctor thus signify that it seemed to him, just as to Cyprian, unseasonable and less fair? Moreover, do not by any means think that these words of Augustine which we set forth are such as can be tempered from other words of the same holy Doctor. For in that place alone, and nowhere else, does he expressly weigh the things which Cyprian blurted out against Stephen,

Editors' notes and page, col. 1355

Footnotes

(9) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1355)

Lib. V de Bapt. c. 23.

On Baptism, book V, chapter 23.

(printed under page 729)

(10) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1355)

Ibid. c. 25.

Same work, chapter 25.

(printed under page 729)

(11) ‹anchor: dissensionis periculum habuerunt› · call in col 1355

De Bapt. cont. Donat. lib, V, c. 25.

On Baptism, against the Donatists, book V, chapter 25.

(printed under page 729)

Page

running head: 1355 DE HAERETICORUM BA
marginal letters: A (in col. 1356); B (in col. 1356); C (in col. 1356); D (in col. 1356)
old-edition numerals: 1303 before quae
other: editors' matter: ostentat antiquitas... effutiit, (entire column)

PL 3:1356

ut ex eo Augustini mentem certo assequi possis et debeas. Qua vero fronte, ut obiter dicam, nuperi aliqui protulerint Augustinum praecipuam Cypriani sanctitatem in modo, quo adversus Stephanum sese gessit constituisse, viderint ipsi, nobisque patefaciant; quasi vero tot alia Cypriani praeclarissima gesta ad eximiam, quam apud Deum et homines obtinuit sanctitatem firmandam ac constituendam minime sufficerent. In expendendis sanctorum virtutibus, expendantur sanctorum testimonia; ad sanctos potissimum spectat sanctorum vera discernere merita, eorumque praeconia celebrare; sanctissimi igitur Cypriani merita ex sanctissimo pariter Augustino liceat dignoscere, nil aequius: at, quae in Cypriano non probavit, sed potius velo charitatis et silentii obvolvenda censuit Augustinus, veridici dicamus ab ipso non adeo fuisse laudata, ut in illis praecipua Cypriani sanctitatis fundamina locaverit.

so that from it you can and ought certainly to attain to the mind of Augustine. Now with what face, to say it in passing, some recent writers have put forward that Augustine placed the chief holiness of Cyprian in the manner in which he bore himself against Stephen, let them see to it themselves, and make it plain to us; as though indeed so many other most noble deeds of Cyprian by no means sufficed for confirming and establishing the eminent holiness which he obtained before God and men! In weighing the virtues of the saints, let the testimonies of the saints be weighed; to the saints chiefly does it belong to discern the true merits of the saints, and to celebrate their praises; let it be allowable therefore to discern the merits of the most holy Cyprian from the equally most holy Augustine—nothing is fairer: yet the things which Augustine did not approve in Cyprian, but rather judged ought to be wrapped in the veil of charity and silence, let us speaking the truth say were not so praised by him that he placed in them the chief foundations of the holiness of Cyprian.

Ex Augustino rursus percipere lubet quae fuerit editi a Stephano praecepti aequitas, et an merito ipsi restiterit Cyprianus. Etsi Augustinus; ut modo videbamus, retractare se nolle ac praeterire melius esse profiteatur, quae Cyprianus in Epistola ad Pompeium « irritatus » in Stephanum « effuderat, » quaedam tamen ex illa decerpere ac referre voluit, quae maxime apta erant ad probandam conditi a Stephano praecepti aequitatem, et culpandam Cypriani inobtemperantiam; in quo mirari satis non possumus Augustiniani vim ingenii ac mentis perspicaciam, cui vel ipsa Cypriani documenta suffecerint ad demonstrandam ipsius resistentiae labem. Cum enim Cyprianus Stephani praeceptum aegre ferens in citata ad Pompeium epistola dixisset « Episcopum docibilem esse debere, et non tantum docere, sed et discere illum oportere, » haec Cypriani verba refert atque probat Augustinus, at alio sane quam Cyprianus spiritu et scopo; Cyprianus enim episcopum docibilem esse debere dicebat, ut ostenderet Stephanum praecipere tantum ac docere non debuisse, sed etiam discere ac aliorum rationibus docibilem sese praebere; Augustinus econtra illa Cypriani sententia utitur, ut ostendat non Stephanum Cypriani argumentis, sed Cyprianum Stephani praecepto docibilem esse debuisse, « quia, inquit, recitato illo Cypriani effato, sicut multa erant quae doctus Cyprianus doceret, sic erat et aliquid quod Cyprianus docibilis disceret. » Quo ergo in negotio Cyprianus Stephanum, Augustinus Cyprianum docibilem voluit, quid hoc significat nisi Cyprianum juxta Augustinum Stephano docenti et praecipienti docibilem esse debuisse? ex quo patet Stephani praeceptum aequissimum Augustino visum fuisse.

From Augustine again it is pleasing to perceive what was the equity of the command published by Stephen, and whether Cyprian deservedly withstood him. Although Augustine, as we just saw, professes that he is unwilling to handle again and that it is better to pass over the things which Cyprian in the Letter to Pompeius "irritated had poured forth" against Stephen, nevertheless he wished to pluck out and report certain things from it, which were most apt for proving the equity of the command established by Stephen, and for blaming the disobedience of Cyprian; wherein we cannot sufficiently admire the force of the Augustinian wit and the perspicacity of his mind, for whom even the very documents of Cyprian sufficed to demonstrate the stain of his resistance. For when Cyprian, bearing ill the command of Stephen, had said in the cited letter to Pompeius "that a bishop ought to be teachable, and that it behooves him not only to teach, but also to learn," Augustine reports and approves these words of Cyprian, yet assuredly with another spirit and aim than Cyprian; for Cyprian said that a bishop ought to be teachable in order to show that Stephen ought not only to have commanded and taught, but also to have learned and shown himself teachable to the reasons of others; Augustine on the contrary uses that saying of Cyprian in order to show that not Stephen to the arguments of Cyprian, but Cyprian to the command of Stephen ought to have been teachable, "because, says he, after reciting that utterance of Cyprian, just as there were many things which the learned Cyprian might teach, so there was also something which the teachable Cyprian might learn." When therefore in the business wherein Cyprian wished Stephen to be teachable, Augustine wished Cyprian to be teachable, what does this signify save that Cyprian according to Augustine ought to have been teachable to Stephen teaching and commanding? From which it is plain that the command of Stephen seemed most fair to Augustine.

Cum autem Augustino potissimum insistant adversarii nostri, vitio nobis non dabitur si in ipsius mente exponenda paululum immoramur. Quot fuerint in excusando Cypriano S. Doctoris ambages,

Now since our adversaries chiefly insist upon Augustine, it will not be imputed to us as a fault if we linger a little in setting forth his mind. How many were the windings of the holy Doctor in excusing Cyprian,

Editors' notes and page, col. 1356

Footnotes

(12) ‹anchor: probat Augustinus› · call in col 1356

Lib. V de Bapt., cap. 26.

On Baptism, book V, chapter 26.

(printed under page 729)

Page

running head: TICORUM BAPTISMATE. 1356
marginal letters: A ut ex eo Augustini; B charitatis et silentii; C monstrandam ipsius resistentiae; D nus doceret, sic
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: ut ex eo... ambages, (entire column)

PL 3:1357

quot angustiae, ostendunt diversae illae ac perplexae, quas pro ejus defensione adduxit rationes. Modo enim contendit dubitari posse an Cyprianus rebaptizandos haereticos esse senserit, ac saepius conatur etiam aliorum testimonio ipsius errorem dubium reddere. Modo contendit ipsum, si ita sensit, hunc errorem correxisse. Modo tradit Cyprianum, si revera noluit Baptismum apud haereticos, ut Stephanus docebat, agnoscere, id suae charitatis ubertate ac suae passionis falce purgasse: haec omnia quid aliud manifestant quam pontificii praecepti aequitatem? Si enim Stephanus praecipiendo aequitatis ac potestatis suae limites excessit, nec illi cedere debuisset Cyprianus, ut quid pro istius defensione indagandum Augustino fuisset, utrum correxisset suam sententiam necne, cum illam revocare ac corrigere non teneretur? Praeterea Cyprianus in eo, juxta Augustinum, peccavit, quod « noluit agnoscere baptismum apud haereticos: » peccatum enim fuisse quod charitatis ubertate ac falce passionis purgandum erat, nemo dubitat; at profecto in eo non peccasset Cyprianus, si Stephano praecipienti agnoscendum esse baptismum apud haereticos obtemperare non tenebatur; quam in rem quasdam recentiorum hallucinationes aperire non piget, nec inutile videtur. Alii contendunt nihil Cypriano in hac cum Stephano concertatione excidisse, quod aliqua reprehensione dignum Augustino visum fuerit, imo affirmant Cyprianum in modo quo sese gessit adversus Stephanum maxime ab Augustino commendari, quorum sententiam vel referre jam est refutare. Consultiores alii duo in Cypriani agendi ratione distinguunt, quod nempe Stephano restiterit, et quod nonnulla in Stephanum effuderit, quae moderationem ac mansuetudinem christianam minus saperent. Id ultimum ab Augustino reprehendi asserunt, non vero primum. Pace istorum dixerim Augustini scripta vel satis non volverunt, vel ipsa satis non attendere; inscite vel re profecto hallucinantur.

how many his straits, those diverse and perplexed reasons show which he adduced for his defence. For now he contends that it can be doubted whether Cyprian thought that heretics ought to be rebaptized, and quite often he endeavours even by the testimony of others to render his error doubtful. Now he contends that he, if he thought thus, corrected this error. Now he hands down that Cyprian, if in truth he was unwilling to recognize Baptism among heretics, as Stephen taught, purged this by the fruitfulness of his charity and the pruning-hook of his passion: what else do all these things manifest than the equity of the pontifical command? For if Stephen in commanding exceeded the limits of equity and of his own power, and Cyprian ought not to have yielded to him, why would Augustine have had to investigate for his defence whether he had corrected his opinion or not, since he was not bound to recall and correct it? Besides, Cyprian sinned in this, according to Augustine, that "he was unwilling to recognize baptism among heretics": for that what had to be purged by the fruitfulness of charity and the pruning-hook of passion was a sin, no one doubts; yet assuredly Cyprian would not have sinned therein if he was not bound to obey Stephen commanding that baptism among heretics must be recognized; regarding which matter it does not irk us, nor does it seem useless, to lay open certain hallucinations of the more recent writers. Some contend that nothing escaped Cyprian in this controversy with Stephen which seemed to Augustine worthy of any rebuke, nay, they affirm that Cyprian in the manner in which he bore himself against Stephen is most highly commended by Augustine—whose opinion merely to report is already to refute. Others better advised distinguish two things in Cyprian's manner of acting, namely that he withstood Stephen, and that he poured forth certain things against Stephen which savoured less of Christian moderation and meekness. They assert that the latter is rebuked by Augustine, and not the former. With the leave of these men I would say that they either have not unrolled the writings of Augustine enough, or have not attended to them enough; unskilfully or in very deed they hallucinate.

Enimvero S. Augustinus in Cypriano non solum ea reprehendit quae minus temperanter in Stephanum effudit, sed etiam quod ipse aliter ac Stephanus in hac quaestione senserit, quod noluerit, ut Stephanus praeceperat, baptismum apud haereticos agnoscere, id etiam praeter ea, quae in Stephanum « irritatus effudit, » charitate et martyrio a Cypriano purgatum affirmat Hipponensis episcopus. Attentae jam Augustino praebeantur aures: « Cyprianus, inquit in Ep. ad Vincentium Rogat. c. 10, aut non sentit omnino quod eum sensisse recitatis (apud haereticos non esse baptismum), aut hoc postea correxit in regula veritatis, aut hunc quasi

For in truth St. Augustine rebukes in Cyprian not only those things which he less temperately poured forth against Stephen, but also that he himself thought otherwise than Stephen in this question, that he was unwilling, as Stephen had commanded, to recognize baptism among heretics; this also, besides those things which when "irritated he poured forth" against Stephen, the Bishop of Hippo affirms to have been purged by Cyprian through charity and martyrdom. Let attentive ears now be lent to Augustine: "Cyprian," says he in the Letter to Vincentius the Rogatist, chapter 10, "either did not think at all what you recite him to have thought (that there is no baptism among heretics), or he afterwards corrected this in the rule of truth, or he covered this as it were

Editors' notes and page, col. 1357

Footnotes

(13) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1357)

Lib. II de Bapt., cap. 31, 33, 35 et 38 ; lib. IV de Bapt. cap. 17 ; lib. I contra Cresconium, cap. 32 ; Epist. ad Macrobium 108 ; Epist. ad Vincentium Rogat., cap. 10.

On Baptism, book II, chapters 31, 33, 35 and 38; On Baptism, book IV, chapter 17; Against Cresconius, book I, chapter 32; Letter 108, to Macrobius; Letter to Vincent the Rogatist, chapter 10.

(printed under page 730)

(14) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1357)

Lib II de Bapt., cap. 4 et 5 ; lib. II contra Crescon., cap. ult. ; Epist. ad Vincent. Rogat., cap. 10.

On Baptism, book II, chapters 4 and 5; Against Cresconius, book II, last chapter; Letter to Vincent the Rogatist, chapter 10.

(printed under page 730)

(15) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1358)

Lib. I de Bapt. cap. 18 ; lib. de unico Bapt. contra Petilian, cap. 13 ; Epist. ad Vincent, Rogat. cap. 10.

On Baptism, book I, chapter 18; On the One Baptism, against Petilian, chapter 13; Letter to Vincent the Rogatist, chapter 10.

(printed under page 730)

Page

running head: 1357 PARS II. — RECENTIORUM
marginal letters: A (in col. 1358); B (in col. 1358); C (in col. 1358); D (in col. 1358)
old-edition numerals: 1304 before ostendunt
other: editors' matter: quot angustiae... quasi (entire column)

PL 3:1358

naevum sui candidissimi pectoris cooperuit ubere charitatis. » Hic juxta Augustinum non quae in Stephanum « irritatus effudit, » sed quod aliter ac Stephanus circa haereticorum baptisma sensit Cyprianus, illud est quod « ubere charitatis cooperuit. » Et lib. I de Bapt. cap. 18, « Quod ergo, inquit, ille vir sanctus (Cyprianus) de baptismo aliter sentiens quam se res habeat, quae postea pertractata et diligentissima consideratione firmata est, in catholica unitate permansit, et charitatis ubertate compensatum est et passionis falce purgatum. » Hoc juxta Augustinum charitatis ubertate compensavit, hoc passionis falce purgavit Cyprianus, nimirum « quod aliter, quam se res, » ut Stephanus docebat, « haberet, » circa haereticorum baptisma « sentiebat. » Praeterea cum Petilianus Donatista Cypriani auctoritatem urgeret, qui haereticos ad Ecclesiam redeuntes sine baptismo non esse recipiendos statuerat: « O quam, exclamabundus respondet Augustinus, detestandus est error hominum qui clarorum virorum quaedam non recte facta laudabiliter se imitari putant, a quorum virtutibus alieni sunt; sic enim et nonnulli Petro apostolo comparari se volunt, si Christum negaverint; si vero etiam gentes judaizare coegerint, vocitari germani ejus affectant: haec in illo tanto reprehensibilia fuerunt, sed tanta eminuit apostolica gratia ut continuo delerentur... sic et in martyre gloriosissimo Cypriano. Si apud haereticos, vel schismaticos datum Christi baptismum nolebat agnoscere, tanta ejus merita usque ad triumphum martyrii consecuta sunt, ut et charitatis qua excellebat luce, illa obumbratio fugaretur. » Vides ex Augustino in Cypriano hoc fuisse « reprehensibile, » quod « noluerit, » quemadmodum ipsi praeceperat Stephanus, « agnoscere » baptismum Christi apud haereticos et schismaticos datum; haec juxta Augustinum ipsa fuit Cypriani quaedam « obumbratio » quae sub charitatis luce « fugari » debuit.

mole of his most snow-white breast with the breast of charity." Here according to Augustine not the things which when "irritated he poured forth" against Stephen, but the fact that Cyprian thought otherwise than Stephen concerning the baptism of heretics, is that which "he covered with the breast of charity." And in book 1 On Baptism, chapter 18, he says: "That therefore that holy man (Cyprian), thinking otherwise concerning baptism than the matter stands, which was afterwards thoroughly handled and confirmed by most diligent consideration, remained in Catholic unity, was both compensated by the fruitfulness of his charity and purged by the pruning-hook of his passion." This according to Augustine Cyprian compensated by the fruitfulness of charity, this he purged by the pruning-hook of passion, namely "that he thought otherwise than the matter stood," as Stephen taught, concerning the baptism of heretics. Besides, when Petilian the Donatist urged the authority of Cyprian, who had determined that heretics returning to the Church ought not to be received without baptism, Augustine exclaiming replies: "O how detestable is the error of men who think that they laudably imitate certain things not rightly done of illustrious men, from whose virtues they are alien; for thus also some wish themselves to be compared to the Apostle Peter if they have denied Christ; and if they have also compelled the Gentiles to Judaize, they affect to be called his own brothers: these things in so great a man were reprehensible, yet so great an apostolic grace shone forth that they were straightway blotted out... thus also in the most glorious martyr Cyprian: if he was unwilling to recognize the baptism of Christ given among heretics or schismatics, so great merits of his followed even unto the triumph of martyrdom, that by the light of charity also wherein he excelled, that overshadowing was put to flight." You see from Augustine that this was "reprehensible" in Cyprian, that "he was unwilling," even as Stephen had commanded him, "to recognize" the baptism of Christ given among heretics and schismatics; this very thing according to Augustine was a certain "overshadowing" of Cyprian which had to be "put to flight" under the light of charity.

Tandem ne morosiores simus in percurrendis omnibus quae his respondent Augustini locis, unum et solum, jam citatis adhuc subnectimus petitum ex libr. II contr. Gaudentium Donat. cap. 8: « Absit autem, inquit, ut quoniam beatissimus Cyprianus de baptismo aliter sensit, quam veritas et antea consuetudine, et postea perspecta diligentius ratione monstravit, propterea quisquam nostrum qui hoc quod ille non sapimus, ei se audeat anteponere. Caetera enim multa et magna ejus merita et animus praecipua charitate plenissimus, per quem collegis diversa sentientibus pacatissimus mansit, et in unitate Ecclesiae passio gloriosa, satis ostenderunt

Finally, lest we be too tedious in running through all the passages of Augustine which correspond to these, we subjoin to those already cited still one and only one sought from book 2 Against Gaudentius the Donatist, chapter 8: "Now far be it, says he, that because the most blessed Cyprian thought otherwise concerning baptism than the truth showed both previously by custom, and afterwards when the reason had been more diligently examined, on that account any one of us, who do not hold this which he held, should dare to prefer himself to him. For his many and great other merits, and his mind most full of special charity, through which he remained most peaceful towards his colleagues who thought differently, and his glorious passion in the unity of the Church, sufficiently

Editors' notes and page, col. 1358

Footnotes

(16) ‹anchor: illa obumbratio fugaretur› · call in col 1358

Lib. de Un. Baptism. contra Petilianum cap. 13.

On the One Baptism, against Petilian, chapter 13.

(printed under page 730)

(17) ‹anchor: respondent Augustini locis› · call in col 1358

V. lib. III de Baptism. cap. 19 ; epist. 108 ad Macrobium, cap. 3, etc.

See On Baptism, book III, chapter 19; Letter 108, to Macrobius, chapter 3, etc.

(printed under page 730)

Page

running head: RECENTIORUM EXCURSUS. 1358
marginal letters: A naevum sui candidissimi; B rum baptisma « sentiebat. »; C triumhum martyrii consecuta; D antea consuetudine, et
old-edition numerals: 1305 before pectoris
other: editors' matter: naevum sui... ostende- (entire column); word split at end of column: ostende-
other: the word ostenderunt was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1359

PL 3:1359

eum fuisse sarmentum in Christi radicem fructuosam, quod Pater etiam ab ista reprehensione purgaret.... ostendens etiam in ipsis fructuosis agricolam qui est in coelis aliquid invenire quod purget. » Quid clarius? Quid luculentius? Cyprianus, juxta Augustinum, de baptismo aliter sensit, quam veritas per os nempe Stephani consuetudine tunc monstrabat, at Pater coelestis propter ipsius praecipuam charitatem et passionem gloriosam ab « ista reprehensione » etiam purgavit. Reprehensibilis ergo etiam erat Cyprianus quod de Baptismo aliter sentiret ac Stephanus, non ergo tantum reprehensibilis erat Cyprianus juxta Augustinum quod quaedam in Stephanum minus moderata ac modesta effuderit, sed etiam quod aliter ab ipso de Baptismo sentiret, ac Stephano contra sentiente et praecipiente, censuerit nullum esse apud haereticos baptisma.

showed that he was a fruitful branch in the root of Christ, which the Father purged even from that rebuke... showing that even in the fruitful ones themselves the Husbandman Who is in heaven finds something to purge." What is clearer? What is more lucid? Cyprian, according to Augustine, thought otherwise concerning baptism than the truth then showed by custom, namely through the mouth of Stephen, yet the heavenly Father on account of his special charity and glorious passion purged him even from "that rebuke." Cyprian therefore was reprehensible also because he thought otherwise concerning Baptism than Stephen; Cyprian therefore was not only reprehensible according to Augustine because he poured forth certain less moderate and modest things against Stephen, but also because he thought otherwise than he concerning Baptism, and when Stephen thought and commanded to the contrary, judged that there is no baptism among heretics.

Haec si pacati et attenti perpendissent isti recentiores, illam nunquam excogitassent, quae solos incautos vel inscitos decipere possit, distinctionem, qua nimirum volunt Cyprianum in eo quidem ab Augustino reprehendi, quod in Stephanum aliqua charitati ac moderationi Christianae minus consona effuderit, non autem in eo quod Stephano refragante ac contra praecipiente suam pertinaciter defenderit sententiam. Centies obtrudunt, inculcant urgentque Cyprianum suam constanter et immote sententiam propugnasse, licet Stephanus R. pontifex contra scripsisset et praecepisset, nec in eo ab Augustino unquam fuisse culpatum, quia Stephanus moderationis ac suae potestatis limites excessit, quia soli Ecclesiae judicio Cyprianus cedere tenebatur. Quid his ego? Sine clamore, sine strepitu, sine ostentatione, sed vere, simpliciter et breviter dico Cyprianum ad genuinam Augustini mentem in eo fuisse « reprehensibilem » quod « aliter ac Stephanus sensit; » quod « noluerit agnoscere « illud, quod Stephanus agnosci volebat, » Baptismum nimirum Christi etiam esse apud haereticos et schismaticos. » Id, inquam, in Cypriano reprehendit Augustinus, id « charitate » et quidem « uberi » compensatum ab ipso autumavit, id « falce martyrii purgatum » ab ipso pronuntiavit. Tale ergo non erat ad mentem Augustini Stephani R. pontificis praeceptum, cui Cyprianus sine culpa resistere potuerit. Suam ergo sententiam Cyprianus deponere ac aliter sentire debebat, ut culpandus non esset; non ergo tandem Stephanus juxta S. Augustinum vituperandus, quasi praecipiendo moderationis ac suae potestatis limites praetergressus fuerit, sed e contra arguendus Cyprianus, qui aliter ab ipso sentire voluerit, illique resistere.

If those more recent writers, peaceful and attentive, had weighed these things, they would never have devised that distinction which can deceive only the unwary or the unskilful, whereby namely they wish that Cyprian is rebuked by Augustine in this indeed, that he poured forth against Stephen some things less consonant with Christian charity and moderation, yet not in this, that when Stephen gainsaid and commanded to the contrary he obstinately defended his own opinion. A hundred times they obtrude, inculcate, and urge that Cyprian constantly and unmovably maintained his own opinion, although Stephen, the Roman pontiff, had written and commanded to the contrary, and that he was never blamed therein by Augustine, because Stephen exceeded the limits of moderation and of his own power, because Cyprian was bound to yield to the judgement of the Church alone. What do I say to these things? Without clamour, without noise, without ostentation, but truly, simply, and briefly I say that Cyprian, according to the genuine mind of Augustine, was "reprehensible" in this, that "he thought otherwise than Stephen"; that "he was unwilling to recognize that which Stephen wished to be recognized," namely "that the Baptism of Christ is even among heretics and schismatics." This, I say, Augustine rebuked in Cyprian, this he deemed to have been compensated by him through "charity," and indeed "fruitful" charity, this he pronounced to have been "purged by the pruning-hook of martyrdom" by him. The command of Stephen, the Roman pontiff, therefore was not such, according to the mind of Augustine, that Cyprian could withstand it without blame. Cyprian therefore ought to have laid aside his own opinion and thought otherwise, in order not to be blameworthy; finally, therefore, Stephen is not to be blamed according to St. Augustine, as though in commanding he had transgressed the limits of moderation and of his own power, but on the contrary Cyprian is to be censured, who wished to think otherwise than he, and to withstand him.

XI. Quam apposita, quam religiosa, quam aequa Vincentio Lirinensi optimo et antiquissimo Gallo visa fuerint Stephani in Cyprianum gesta, vel ex eo

XI. How apposite, how religious, how fair the deeds of Stephen towards Cyprian seemed to Vincent of Lérins, that best and most ancient Gaul, is abundantly discerned even from this,

Editors' notes and page, col. 1359

Footnotes

(18) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1359)

Commonitor., cap. 9.

Commonitorium, chapter 9.

(printed under page 731)

(19) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1359)

Ibidem.

Same place.

(printed under page 731)

Page

running head: 1359 DE HAERETICORUM BA
marginal letters: A (in col. 1360); B (in col. 1360); C (in col. 1360); D (in col. 1360)
old-edition numerals: 1306 after baptismo
other: editors' matter: runt eum... eo (entire column); word split from preceding column: runt (ostenderunt)

PL 3:1360

abunde dignoscitur, quod illa Stephani gesta referat, et adducat gravissimus auctor ad probandam hanc thesim initio capitis propositam: « Mos iste semper in Ecclesia viguit ut quo quis foret religiosior, eo promptius novellis adinventionibus contrairet. » Verum disertius ac luculentius ostendit his verbis: « In epistola quae tunc ad Africam missa est, his verbis sanxit (Stephanus) nihil innovandum nisi quod traditum est. Intelligebat etenim vir sanctus et prudens nihil aliud rationem pietatis admittere, nisi ut omnia quae fide a Patribus suscepta forent, eadem fide filiis consignarentur, nosque religionem non qua vellemus ducere, sed potius qua illa duceret sequi oportere; idque esse proprium Christianae modestiae et gravitatis non sua posteris tradere, sed a majoribus accepta servare... tunc beatae memoriae papa Stephanus, Apostolicae Sedis antistes, cum caeteris quidem collegis suis, sed tamen prae caeteris restitit (rebaptizantibus), dignum, ut opinor, existimans, si reliquos omnes tantum fidei devotione vinceret, quantum loci auctoritate superabat. » Haec de Stephano toti Galliae insonabat piissimus ille ac eruditissimus Gallus Vincentius. Haec licet Stephano in Cyprianum agenti perhonorifica Francorum nemini tunc nimia vel redundantia videbantur; imo quia veritati non minus, quam suae erga Petri successores innatae pietati consona libenter audiebat ac posteris tradebat universa Gallia, atque utinam haec etiam Launoio placuissent, tot profecto erroribus Vincentium Stephani gesta scribentem non onerasset, ipsique totam in hac re fidem minime detraxisset. Ferum Stephano gloriosa nimis erant, quae Vincentius memorabat, hujusque in exponendis R. Pontificum gestis stilus a Launoii stilo nimis diversus, ut apud Launoium exspectatus ac gratiosus ille fore deberet, qui modestus, pacatus, Augustino coaevus Stephani praeceptum non zelo praecipiti, intempestivo ac impotenti, sed ipsius « sanctitati, prudentiae » nec non « laudabili » posteris eadem tradendi, quae a majoribus acceperat « studio, » ac demum Stephani « fidei » qua caeteros ut et loci dignitate, superabat, ac « devotioni » ascribebat.

that the most weighty author reports and adduces those deeds of Stephen to prove this thesis proposed at the beginning of the chapter: "That custom has always flourished in the Church, that the more religious anyone was, the more promptly he opposed novel inventions." Moreover, he shows this more expressly and more lucidly in these words: "In the letter which was then sent to Africa, he (Stephen) enacted in these words that nothing must be innovated save what has been handed down. For the holy and prudent man understood that the rule of piety admits nothing else save that all things which had been received in faith from the Fathers should by the same faith be consigned to the children, and that it behooves us not to lead religion whither we might wish, but rather to follow whither it leads; and that it is proper to Christian modesty and gravity not to hand down one's own things to posterity, but to keep the things received from one's ancestors... then Pope Stephen of blessed memory, prelate of the Apostolic See, together indeed with the rest of his colleagues, yet beyond the rest, withstood (the rebaptizers), thinking it worthy, as I suppose, if he surpassed all the rest as much in devotion of faith as he excelled them in authority of place." These things concerning Stephen that most pious and most learned Gaul Vincent sounded forth to the whole of Gaul. Although these things were most honourable to Stephen acting against Cyprian, they seemed to no one of the Franks at that time excessive or redundant; nay, because they were consonant no less with the truth than with her innate piety towards the successors of Peter, the whole of Gaul gladly heard them and handed them down to posterity; and would that these things had pleased Launoy also! Assuredly he would not have loaded Vincent with so many errors when writing the deeds of Stephen, and would by no means have detracted all credit from him in this matter. Yet the things which Vincent recounted were too glorious to Stephen, and his style in setting forth the deeds of the Roman Pontiffs was too different from the style of Launoy, for him to have been welcome and in favour with Launoy, seeing that he—modest, peaceful, and contemporary with Augustine—ascribed the command of Stephen not to a precipitate, unseasonable, and unbridled zeal, but to his "holiness and prudence," as well as to his "laudable zeal" for handing down to posterity the same things which he had received from his ancestors, and finally to the "faith and devotion" of Stephen, whereby he surpassed the rest, as also by the dignity of his place.

XII. Prodeat jam nunc insignis et percelebris saeculi sexti episcopus, qui suspectus videri non possit: sive contra Cyprianum pronuntiet, utpote Afer, et Cypriani amantissimus, sive pro S. Stephano pontifice Romano, quippe qui schismaticus, Facundus nempe Hermianensis. Hic autem Cyprianum a Stephano fuisse culpatum, et quidem intentata excommunicatione sciebat et tradebat. Stephano pariter Cyprianum restitisse ac calamum in epistola ad Pompeium in illum strinxisse refert; a Facundo igitur totius rei gestae perito discamus, an jure vel injuria Cyprianus ita fuerit a Stephano culpatus, et consequenter an merito

XII. Let there come forth right now a distinguished and very celebrated bishop of the sixth century, who cannot seem suspected, whether he pronounces against Cyprian, inasmuch as he was an African and most loving of Cyprian, or for St. Stephen the Roman pontiff, inasmuch as he was a schismatic—namely Facundus of Hermiane. Now he knew and handed down that Cyprian had been blamed by Stephen, and indeed with excommunication threatened against him. He equally relates that Cyprian withstood Stephen and drew his pen against him in the letter to Pompeius; from Facundus therefore, a man skilled in the whole transaction, let us learn whether rightly or wrongfully Cyprian was thus blamed by Stephen, and consequently whether he deservedly

Editors' notes and page, col. 1360

Footnotes

(20) ‹anchor: fidem minime detraxisset› · call in col 1360

In Epist. ad Jacob Bevilaq., 15, pag. 817.

In Letter 15, to Giacomo Bevilacqua, p. 817.

(printed under page 731)

(21) ‹anchor: sciebat et tradebat› · call in col 1360

Pro defensione trium Capitulor., lib. X, cap. 3, et libro adversus Mocianum.

In Defence of the Three Chapters, book X, chapter 3, and in the book against Mocianus.

(printed under page 731)

(22) ‹anchor: in illum strinxisse refert› · call in col 1360

Ibid.

Same place.

(printed under page 731)

Page

running head: TICORUM BAPTISMATE. 1360
marginal letters: A abunde dignoscitur, quod; B servare... tunc beatae; C rasset, ipsique totam; D Afer, et Cypriani
old-edition numerals: 1307 before traditum
other: editors' matter: abunde dignoscitur... merito (entire column)

PL 3:1361

ipsi restiterit. Ab ipso perdiscamus etiam, non Cyprianum Stephanus, vel Stephanum Cyprianus injuriose tractaverit: « Cyprianus, » inquit breviter, sed aperte « injuriose tractans beatum Stephanum, a quo fuerat jure culpatus. » Haec in Defensione trium capitulorum, lib. X, cap. 3, versus medium, Africanus antistes, qui libro contra Mocianum, ut supra vidimus, affirmabat Stephani sententiam etiam « de rebaptizantus non ferendis » Ecclesiae universae fuisse probatam, a quo profecto Ecclesiae judicio, cui tota suffragatur antiquitas vir cordatus recedere noluit, ne Christianorum omnium indignationem et offensionem incurreret, quod unus inter veteres et omnium prius Stephani agendi rationem improbare ac in Stephanum insurgere non erubuisset.

withstood him. From him let us also learn thoroughly whether Stephen injuriously treated Cyprian, or Cyprian Stephen: "Cyprian," says he briefly, yet openly, "injuriously treating blessed Stephen, by whom he had rightly been blamed." These things in the Defence of the Three Chapters, book 10, chapter 3, towards the middle, says the African prelate, who in the book Against Mocianus, as we saw above, affirmed that the opinion of Stephen even "concerning not tolerating rebaptizers" had been approved by the universal Church—from which judgement of the Church assuredly, for which all antiquity votes, the sensible man was unwilling to depart, lest he should incur the indignation and offence of all Christians, because he alone among the ancients and first of all had not blushed to disapprove Stephen's manner of acting and to rise up against Stephen.

XIII. Quae Cypriano in causa baptismatis contigere, obiter commemorandi nonnulla fuit vero litteris et sanctitate clarissimo, venerabili Bedae, occasio; pauca vero, quae de hac concertatione nobis etiam tradit eruditus scriptor, sicuti Stephani zelo ac prudentiae nullatenus officiunt, ita etiam illius agendi rationis aequitatem non obscure significant. Scribit enim Cyprianum et suum errorem « correxisse et ad universalem sanctae Ecclesiae normam reductum fuisse. » Qua vero ope, quove praesidio Cyprianus ad universalem Ecclesiae normam reductus fuerit, explicat vir eruditus, « spiritualium » nempe « virorum institutione; » sub nomine autem illorum « spiritualium virorum, » quorum « institutione » Cyprianus illud sit assecutus, Stephanum aliosque Cypriani adversarios a Beda designari perspicuum est. Quid amplius ad ostendendam Stephani in Cyprianum agendi rationis prudentiam ac aequitatem? Prudentem aequamve quis neget illam agendi rationem, cui tam utilis, tam gloriosus debeatur fructus ac exitus, quae Cyprianum ad universalem Ecclesiae normam reducere valuerit? En pii scriptoris verba ex libro Variorum quaestionum, quaest. 5, decerpta: « Si bona quae nostis per charitatem operamini, tribuet vobis divina gratia, ut si quid aliter quam decet sapitis, et hoc aliquando intelligatis, sicut B. Cypriano contigisse perspicuum est, qui cum suis coepiscopis qui erant in Africa rebaptizandos esse haereticos contra morem Ecclesiae statuit, sed quia in suo sensu, qui sibi rectus videbatur, bonis abundare operibus studuit, mox corrigi meruit, atque ad universalem sanctae Ecclesiae normam spiritualium virorum institutione reduci. »

XIII. Now the Venerable Bede, a man most illustrious in letters and holiness, had some occasion of mentioning in passing the things which befell Cyprian in the cause of baptism; and the few things which the learned writer also hands down to us concerning this controversy, just as they in no way stand in the way of the zeal and prudence of Stephen, so also not obscurely do they signify the equity of his manner of acting. For he writes that Cyprian both "corrected" his error "and was brought back to the universal norm of the holy Church." Now by what help, or by what aid Cyprian was brought back to the universal norm of the Church, the learned man explains, namely "by the instruction of spiritual men"; and that under the name of those "spiritual men," by whose "instruction" Cyprian attained this, Stephen and the other adversaries of Cyprian are designated by Bede is clear. What more is needed to show the prudence and equity of Stephen's manner of acting towards Cyprian? Who would deny that that manner of acting was prudent or fair, to which so useful, so glorious a fruit and issue is owed, and which was able to bring Cyprian back to the universal norm of the Church? Behold the words of the pious writer plucked from the book of Various Questions, question 5: "If the good things which you know you work through charity, divine grace will grant you that if in anything you hold otherwise than is fitting, you shall at some time understand this also, even as it is clear that it befell Blessed Cyprian, who with his fellow-bishops who were in Africa determined contrary to the custom of the Church that heretics must be rebaptized, yet because in his own view, which seemed right to himself, he studied to abound in good works, he soon deserved to be corrected, and by the instruction of spiritual men to be brought back to the universal norm of the holy Church."

XIV. Quid dicam de Georgio Tarasii patriarchae Constantinop. Syncello? Quid de Nicephoro Callisto? Referunt ambo Stephanum Cypriano restitisse; nec ignorabant modum quo restitit, praecipiendo scilicet atque gravissimas poenas intentando; id etiam expresse tradit Nicephorus; at neuter Stephanum carpit, neuter ullatenus reprehendit,

XIV. What shall I say of George, Syncellus of Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople? What of Nicephorus Callistus? Both relate that Stephen withstood Cyprian; nor were they ignorant of the manner in which he withstood him, namely by commanding and holding out threats of most heavy punishments; Nicephorus even expressly hands this down; yet neither carps at Stephen, neither in any way rebukes him,

Editors' notes and page, col. 1361

Footnotes

(23) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in col 1361)

Supra.

Above.

(printed under page 732)

(24) ‹anchor: expresse tradit Nicephorus› · call in col 1361

Lib. VI, Hist. eccl., cap. 7.

Ecclesiastical History, book VI, chapter 7.

(printed under page 732)

(25) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot images (note printed in cols 1361–1362)

Nicephor., ibid. Georgius apud Anastasium, Bibl. ad an. 246.

Nicephorus, same place. George, in Anastasius the Librarian, under the year 246.

(printed under page 732)

Page

running head: 1361 PARS II. — RECENTIORU
marginal letters: A (in col. 1362); B (in col. 1362); C (in col. 1362); D (in col. 1362)
old-edition numerals: 1308 before ut
other: editors' matter: ipsi restiterit... reprehendit, (entire column)

PL 3:1362

sed ambo Eusebium Caesariensem secuti eam Stephani agendi rationis causam adducunt, quae illam non nisi aequam efficiant ac exhibere valeant. Ita enim erga Cyprianum se gessit sanctus Pontifex juxta laudatos scriptores, quia nil « novi, » nil quod « antiquae Ecclesiae consuetudini adversaretur in eam introduci volebat » et curabat.

but both following Eusebius of Caesarea adduce that cause of Stephen's manner of acting, which cannot but render and exhibit it as fair. For the holy Pontiff bore himself thus towards Cyprian, according to the praised writers, because "he wished" and took care "that nothing new, nothing which opposed the ancient custom of the Church should be introduced into her."

XV. Apposita, aequa ac opportuna Stephani in rebaptizantes gesta adeo judicarunt veteres, ut vel ipsis rebaptizantibus, si non illico, animis ardore disputationis abreptis, saltem non multo post, sedatis jam ac serenis, probata fuisse nobisificent, et quidem sic probata, ut suum errorem etiam revocaverint. De S. Cypriano id credi vult S. Augustinus, licet id litteris mandatum se non invenisse fateatur. « Cyprianus, » inquit in Epist. Ad Vincent. Rogat., 93, cap. 10, « autem sensisse aliter de baptismo, quam forma et consuetudo habebat Ecclesiae non in canonicis, sed in suis et concilii litteris invenitur; correxisse autem istam sententiam non invenitur, non incongruenter tamen de tali viro existimandum est, quod correxerit et fortasse suppressum sit ab eis qui hoc errore nimium delectati sunt, et tanto velut patrocinio carere noluerunt. » Augustinus hoc quidem in loco dicit tantummodo « non incongruenter » de Cypriano existimandum esse, quod suam correxerit sententiam; at lib. II de Baptismo contra Donatist., cap. 5, tam certum asserit Cyprianum suam revocasse sententiam, quam certum est tanti meriti fuisse virum; hinc enim considerans S. Doctor Cyprianum Stephano restitisse, illinc magna contemplatus Cypriani merita, quibus non parum offecisset ipsius in errore pertinacia; cum in Cypriani litteris hujusce opinionis correctionem ac emendationem non invenisset, asseveranter pronuntiat, quod si hanc correctionem litterae tacerent, ipsius tamen merita testarentur, ac dubiam esse non sinerent: « Quomodo, inquit, accipere potuerit Cyprianus veritatem contra id quod sentiebat inventam, et si litterae tacent, merita clamant, si Epistola non invenitur, corona testatur. »

XV. The ancients judged the deeds of Stephen against the rebaptizers so apposite, fair, and seasonable, that they signify to us that they were approved even by the rebaptizers themselves, if not straightway while their minds were carried away by the heat of disputation, at least not long afterwards when they had now calmed down and become serene—and indeed so approved that they even recalled their own error. Concerning St. Cyprian St. Augustine wishes this to be believed, although he confesses that he has not found it committed to writing. "Now that Cyprian," says he in the Letter to Vincentius the Rogatist, 93, chapter 10, "thought otherwise concerning baptism than the form and custom of the Church held, is found not in the canonical writings, but in his own letters and those of the council; whereas that he corrected that opinion is not found; nevertheless it must not incongruously be thought concerning such a man that he corrected it, and that perhaps it was suppressed by those who were too much delighted with this error, and were unwilling to lack so great a patronage, as it were." Augustine in this place indeed says only that it must "not incongruously" be thought concerning Cyprian that he corrected his opinion; yet in book 2 On Baptism against the Donatists, chapter 5, he asserts that it is as certain that Cyprian recalled his opinion as it is certain that he was a man of so great merit; for on the one hand considering that Cyprian had withstood Stephen, and on the other contemplating the great merits of Cyprian, which his obstinacy in error would have injured not a little, since the holy Doctor had not found in the letters of Cyprian the correction and amendment of this opinion, he emphatically pronounces that even if the letters were silent about this correction, nevertheless his merits testified to it, and did not suffer it to be doubtful: "How Cyprian," says he, "could have received the truth found contrary to that which he thought, even if the letters are silent, his merits cry aloud; if an Epistle is not found, his crown testifies."

Augustino concinit S. Hieronymus, qui expressis verbis affirmat Africanos episcopos suam de rebaptizandis haereticis sententiam novo decreto revocasse. « Illi ipsi episcopi, inquit, qui rebaptizandos haereticos cum Cypriano statuerant, ad antiquam consuetudinem revoluti novum emisere decretum. » Orientales pariter rebaptizationi faventes suum rescidisse judicium, tradit Augustinus, et vel ipsi agnoscebant Donatistae: « Majores autem vestri, » inquit S. Doctor, lib. III contra Cresconium, cap. 2, « quibus tale testimonium perhibuisti, quod ab Orientalibus propterea communione discreti sunt, quia illi suum judicium resciderunt, quo eis placuerat de illa baptismi quaestione

With Augustine chimes in St. Jerome, who in express words affirms that the African bishops recalled their opinion concerning rebaptizing heretics by a new decree. "Those very bishops," says he, "who had determined with Cyprian that heretics must be rebaptized, returning to the ancient custom, issued a new decree." That the Easterns who favoured rebaptism equally rescinded their judgement, Augustine hands down, and even the Donatists themselves recognized it: "Now your ancestors," says the holy Doctor, book 3 Against Cresconius, chapter 2, "to whom you bore such testimony, were separated from the communion of the Easterns on that account, because those men rescinded their judgement whereby it had pleased them that in that question of baptism

Editors' notes and page, col. 1362

Footnotes

(26) ‹anchor: novum emisere decretum› · call in col 1362

Dialog. advers. Luciferian.

Dialogue against the Luciferians.

(printed under page 732)

Page

running head: RECENTIORUM EXCURSUS. 1362
marginal letters: A sed ambo Eusebium; B invenisse fateatur. « Cyprianus, »; C num Stephano restitisse,; D zandos haereticos cum
old-edition numerals: 1309 before XV.
other: editors' matter: sed ambo... quae- (entire column); word split at end of column: quae-
other: the word quaestione was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1363

PL 3:1363

Cyprianus atque illi Africano concilio consentire oportere, » et paulo post, ipsum alloquens Cresconium donatistam: « Vestri majores qui se ab Orientalium communione, quod de hac re (baptismo haereticorum) diversa senserint diviserunt. » Et cap. 3: « Cur non potius etiam ipsos paucos Orientales suum judicium correxisse dicamus, non ut tu loqueris, rescidisse; sicut enim laudabile est a vera sententia non moveri, ita culpabile persistere in falsa. » Cyprianum a sua sententia discessisse aperte tradebat octavo saeculo V. Beda his verbis: « Cyprianus, qui cum suis coepiscopis qui erant in Africa rebaptizandos esse haereticos contra morem Ecclesiae statuit, mox corrigi meruit, atque ad universalem sanctae Ecclesiae normam spiritualium virorum institutione reduci. » De rebaptizantium resipiscentia ita veteres laudati, quibus nullum refragari in antiquitate tota reperies. Jam vero si Stephanus Rom. pontifex suam in hoc negotio auctoritatem non interposuisset, si tantum non prae se tulisset vigorem apostolicum, nisi se tanquam murum aereum rebaptizantibus opposuisset, adeone facile suam, quam tanto ardore propugnabant sententiam revocassent Africani simul et Orientales antistites? Quis hic digitum Dei non agnoscat, qui Stephani aliorumque ipsi adhaerentium episcoporum zelum ac constantiam tam uberi fructu cumulare voluerit? Illudne credes intempestivum, quod tam fuerit efficax studium? Iniquo ac intempestivo zelo itane dociles se praebuissent, qui eo gravabantur? Vel hinc Stephani actorum dignosce aequitatem.

they ought to agree with Cyprian and that African council," and a little after, addressing Cresconius the Donatist himself: "Your ancestors, who divided themselves from the communion of the Easterns because they thought differently concerning this matter (the baptism of heretics)." And chapter 3: "Why should we not rather say that those few Easterns themselves also corrected their judgement, and not, as you speak, rescinded it? For just as it is laudable not to be moved from a true opinion, so it is culpable to persist in a false one." That Cyprian departed from his opinion the Venerable Bede in the eighth century openly handed down in these words: "Cyprian, who with his fellow-bishops who were in Africa determined contrary to the custom of the Church that heretics must be rebaptized, soon deserved to be corrected, and by the instruction of spiritual men to be brought back to the universal norm of the holy Church." Thus speak the praised ancients concerning the repentance of the rebaptizers, whom you will find no one gainsaying in all antiquity. Now indeed, if Stephen the Roman pontiff had not interposed his authority in this business, if he had not displayed so great an apostolic vigour, unless he had opposed himself like a brazen wall to the rebaptizers, would the African and at the same time the Eastern prelates so easily have recalled their opinion which they maintained with so great ardour? Who would not here recognize the finger of God, Who willed to crown the zeal and constancy of Stephen and the other bishops adhering to him with so fruitful a result? Will you believe that that zeal was unseasonable which was so efficacious? Would those who were burdened by it have shown themselves so teachable to an unfair and unseasonable zeal? Even from this discern the equity of the acts of Stephen.

XVI. Ad tandem quod unum infrunita recentiorum illorum, qui sanctissimi pontificis memoriam dilacerare non desinunt, ora penitus contundere, ac iniquam audaciam reprimere sufficeret, ipsi auscultentur infensissimi S. Stephani hostes, ipsos dico Donatistas. De aequa vel iniqua Stephani vel Cypriani agendi ratione sint judices. Nemo nescit Donatistis nil fuisse charius quam Cyprianum, nihil familiarius, quam opera Cypriani, ac potissimum ea quae pro sua de rebaptizandis haereticis opinione firmanda elucubraverat. Haec assidue Catholicis occinebant; in Catholicos urgebant; legerat haec, ac triverat illorum coryphaeus Petilianus, haec, inquam Cypriani opera perlegerat, in quibus Stephano praecipienti ac rebaptizantibus excommunicationem minitanti vitia non pauca Cyprianus exprobrabat. Neque tamen his omnibus ita moveri potuit Petilianus, quin ultro ac palam, contra rem suam, contra ipsam S. Cypriani, cujus in Stephanum dicta, ut meras proinde calumnias arguebat, auctoritatem Stephanum « episcopatum illibatum gessisse » absolute profiteretur. Haec Petiliani Cirtensis in Numidia Donatistarum episcopi tam Stephano gloriosa confessio eruitur ex his S. Augustini verbis, lib. De unico Baptismo, contra Petilianum, c. 14: « Sed volo mihi solvat iste (Petilianus) quaestionem, quandoquidem cum Romanae Ecclesiae per ordinem

XVI. But finally—what alone would suffice utterly to crush the senseless mouths of those more recent writers who cease not to tear to pieces the memory of the most holy pontiff, and to repress their wicked audacity—let the most bitter enemies of St. Stephen themselves be listened to, I mean the Donatists themselves. Let them be judges concerning the fair or unfair manner of acting of Stephen or of Cyprian. Everyone knows that nothing was dearer to the Donatists than Cyprian, nothing more familiar than the works of Cyprian, and chiefly those which he had composed for confirming his opinion concerning rebaptizing heretics. These they constantly sang in the ears of the Catholics; these they urged against the Catholics; their ringleader Petilian had read these and thumb-worn them—he had read through, I say, these works of Cyprian, wherein Cyprian reproached not a few faults against Stephen when commanding and threatening excommunication against the rebaptizers. And yet by all these things Petilian could not be so moved as not voluntarily and openly, against his own interest, against the very authority of St. Cyprian—whose sayings against Stephen he accordingly convicted as mere calumnies—absolutely to profess that Stephen "bore an unblemished episcopate." This confession of Petilian, Donatist bishop of Cirta in Numidia, so glorious to Stephen, is drawn out from these words of St. Augustine, in the book On the One Baptism against Petilian, chapter 14: "Yet I wish that man (Petilian) to solve a question for me, seeing that when he recounts in order the bishops of the Roman Church,

Editors' notes and page, col. 1363

Page

running head: 1363 DE HAERETICORUM BA
marginal letters: A (in col. 1364); B (in col. 1364); C (in col. 1364); D (in col. 1364)
old-edition numerals: 1310 after cum
other: editors' matter: stione Cyprianus... ordinem (entire column); word split from preceding column: stione (quaestione)

PL 3:1364

commemorat episcopos, inter eos commemoravit et Stephanum, quos episcopatum illibatum gessisse confessus est. » Quid ad Stephani gloriam tum in aliis quae fecit omnibus, tum in hoc praecipue negotio commendandam excellentius, quam ipsorum de ejus integritate Donatistarum testimonium? Enimvero veritatem hanc non modo apertam, sed et violentam fuisse oportet, quando eam nec hostes quidem infensissimi dissimulare potuerunt. Et hodie non pudet scriptores quosdam, qui se Catholicos haberi volunt, Cypriani Firmilianique litteris ad sanctissimi hujus pontificis memoriam, vel ipsis olim Donatistis undequaque illibatam, commaculandam rursus ac proscindendam abuti.

among those whom he confessed to have borne an unblemished episcopate he recounted Stephen also." What could be more excellent for commending the glory of Stephen both in all the other things which he did, and chiefly in this business, than the testimony of the Donatists themselves concerning his integrity? For in truth this truth must have been not only open, but also irresistible, seeing that not even his most bitter enemies could dissemble it. And today certain writers, who wish themselves to be accounted Catholics, are not ashamed to abuse the letters of Cyprian and Firmilian to stain again and revile the memory of this most holy pontiff, which was in all respects unblemished even to the Donatists themselves of old!

XVII. Plures Stephani vindices non suppeditat antiquitas, quia plures non exhibet, qui de famosa illa Cyprianum inter et Stephanum exorta contentione vel ex professo disseruerint, vel per transennam meminerint; at fallor, nisi laudati hactenus scriptores abunde sufficiant ad propositam Stephani causam non solum a calumniis vindicandam, sed insignibus etiam decorandam elogiis. Ecquis enim dubitet sanae mentis id a Stephano contra Cyprianum aliosque rebaptizantes recte factum fuisse, quod, sicuti veterum nemo improbavit, tot SS. Patres, nobilesque tam doctrina quam antiquitate scriptores, imo vel ipsi infensissimi Stephani hostes in eo commendarunt? Quis judicio tam gravi, tam valido non acquiescat, ac in tantae auctoritatis lectulo quasi fessus non accumbat?

XVII. Antiquity does not supply more defenders of Stephen, because it does not exhibit more who have either expressly discoursed concerning that famous contention arisen between Cyprian and Stephen, or made mention of it in passing; yet I am mistaken if the writers hitherto praised do not abundantly suffice not only for vindicating the proposed cause of Stephen from calumnies, but also for adorning it with distinguished eulogies. For who of sound mind would doubt that that was rightly done by Stephen against Cyprian and the other rebaptizers, which, just as no one of the ancients disapproved it, so many holy Fathers, and writers noble alike in learning and in antiquity, nay, even the most bitter enemies of Stephen themselves commended in him? Who would not acquiesce in a judgement so weighty, so valid, and recline as though wearied upon the couch of so great an authority?

Post haec veterum testimonia anne adhuc inquirendum, an examinandum, utrum recta vel iniqua, opportuna vel intempestiva, prudens vel inconsulta fuerit Stephani contra rebaptizantes agendi ratio? At si minus recta nobis appareant Stephani acta, nostrum hoc qualecunque examen ac judicium nunquid veterum omnium judicio et examine accuratius ac gravius existimabitur? Nunquid tot SS. Patres, totque venerandi Scriptores praejudiciis abrepti vel decepti vel minus veridici credentur, nos vero oculatiores, aequiores, atque his omnibus mentis, vel cordis infirmitatibus ita liberi ac immunes, ut quam ipsi assequi non valuerunt veritatem, pandere ac ostendere nobis tandem fuerit reservatum? Idne, quaeso, cordatis suadebitur? Quam vana, quam stulta nostra esset fiducia, si praeposteris inquisitionibus efficere tandem speraremus, ut posthabito veterum judicio, nobis assentiatur nostraque amplectatur aequus rerum aestimator? Scio quidem ac quotidiana docet experientia hesternis quibusdam hominibus suos magis arridere fetus, suaque inventa, quam trita et pervulgata veterum testimonia, suisque potius quam illorum placitis indulgere.

After these testimonies of the ancients, must we still inquire, or examine, whether Stephen's manner of acting against the rebaptizers was right or unfair, seasonable or unseasonable, prudent or unadvised? Yet if the acts of Stephen appear to us less right, will this examination and judgement of ours, whatsoever it be, be thought more accurate and weightier than the judgement and examination of all the ancients? Will so many holy Fathers and so many venerable Writers be believed to have been carried away by prejudices, or deceived, or less truthful, while we are sharper-sighted, fairer, and so free and immune from all these infirmities of mind or heart, that it was reserved for us at length to lay open and show the truth which they were unable to attain? Will sensible men, I pray, be persuaded of this? How vain, how foolish would our confidence be, if by preposterous inquiries we hoped at length to bring it about that a fair appraiser of things, setting aside the judgement of the ancients, should assent to us and embrace our views! I know indeed, and daily experience teaches, that to certain men of yesterday their own offspring and their own inventions are more pleasing than the worn and well-known testimonies of the ancients, and that they indulge their own opinions rather than theirs.

Quid ergo? Stephani gesta suo illi subjiciant examini per me licet, illorumque aequitatem vel injustitiam non ex veterum judicio, sed ex suis animadversionibus stabiliant, nil veterum omnium, qui de Cypriani et Stephani dissidio scripsere testimoniis,

What then? Let those men subject the deeds of Stephen to their own examination for all I care, and let them establish their equity or injustice not from the judgement of the ancients, but from their own animadversions; let them grant nothing to the testimonies of all the ancients who have written concerning the disagreement of Cyprian and Stephen,

Editors' notes and page, col. 1364

Page

running head: TICORUM BAPTISMATE. 1364
marginal letters: A commemorat episcopos, inter; B peditat antiquitas, quia; C Post haec veterum; D posteris inquisitionibus efficere
old-edition numerals: 1311 before XVII.
other: editors' matter: commemorat episcopos... testimo- (entire column); word split at end of column: testimo-
other: the word testimoniis, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1365

PL 3:1365

totum suis dent disquisitionibus, non intercedo; at quaeso, non illibenter ferant me, cui tanta in excogitando mentis perspicacia concessa non fuit, sicuti nec tanta in judiciis ferendis ingenii maturitas, ex veterum testimoniis vetera dignoscere, veterumque judiciis mea componere. Mihi concedant tenuitatis meae conscio, nec veterum judicia reformare, aut saniora proferre valenti, pro religione ducere, ubi de veterum gestis agitur, probatis me stare veterum monumentis, illorumque a me indui sensus; dicam nude quod sentio: haec via ad recte dignoscenda et aestimanda veterum gesta tutior graviorque mihi semper visa fuit.

give everything to their own inquiries, I do not object; but I ask that they bear it not unwillingly that I, to whom so great a perspicacity of mind in devising has not been granted, nor so great a maturity of talent in passing judgements, should discern ancient things from the testimonies of the ancients, and arrange my own views by the judgements of the ancients. Let them grant to me, who am conscious of my slenderness and able neither to reform the judgements of the ancients nor to bring forward sounder ones, that I make it a point of conscience, where the deeds of the ancients are in question, to stand by the approved records of the ancients and to put on their meaning; I will say plainly what I think: this way of rightly discerning and assessing the deeds of the ancients has always seemed to me the safer and the weightier.

Post longum itaque laboriosumque Stephani gestorum a Neotericis nostris habitum examen, prodeat Stephanus ac ab ipsis divulgetur, superbus, contumeliosus, scatens injuriis, fastum tumide ac dominatum affectans, immanis, tyrannus, quietis perturbator, de ecclesiarum oppressor, uno verbo iis omnibus oneratus flagitiis ac criminibus quae Stephano ab ipsis impacta referebamus. Mihi, cui recondita tot arcana detegere datum non est, plusque sapere, quam veteres nolenti, ac quod illi retulere, pandere gestienti, aliter ab istis censoribus de Stephano, si non cogitare (illorum enim corda rimari non valeo), certe loqui necesse est. Novis igitur istis, sed non a charitate suppeditatis indumentis Stephano detractis, sub veteranis, sed suis, utpote si non aliunde, tot retro saeculorum praecriptione acquisitis, per me appareat vestibus, quae ipsum exhibeant religiosum et prudentem in causa baptismatis haereticorum Ecclesiae traditionis assertorem et vindicem, qui pro singulari filiis ea consignandi quae a patribus acceperat studio gravissime tulerit aliquid contra antiquam Ecclesiae traditionem innovari; ac nova inventa sectantibus, qua pollebat Christiana modestia et gravitate restiterit, ipsoque jure culpaverit, reliquos omnes tantum fidei devotione in eo vincens quantum loci auctoritate superabat, qui ab errantibus injuriose tractatus ac laceratus omnia bono pacis, quae ,vicit in ipsius corde, omnia bono unitatis, quam servare studebat vir magnus et Pater magna charitate praeditus sollisita pietate toleraverit, et haec sufficiant pro vindicanda S. Sthephani Rom. Pontificis contra rebaptizantes agendi ratione.

So, after the long and laborious examination of Stephen's deeds held by our moderns, let Stephen come forth and be proclaimed by them as proud, insulting, teeming with injuries, swollenly aiming at pomp and domination, savage, a tyrant, a disturber of quiet, an oppressor of churches, in a word loaded with all those shameful deeds and crimes which we reported as charged against Stephen by them. For me, to whom it is not given to uncover so many hidden secrets, and who do not wish to be wiser than the ancients, but am eager to set forth what they related, it is necessary, if not to think otherwise of Stephen than these censors (for I am not able to search their hearts), certainly to speak otherwise. So, these new garments, not supplied by charity, being stripped from Stephen, let him appear through me in garments that are old but his own, acquired, if from no other source, by the prescription of so many centuries past, garments which show him as the religious and prudent asserter and defender of the Church's tradition in the cause of the baptism of heretics; who, by a singular zeal for consigning to his sons what he had received from the fathers, took it most gravely that anything should be innovated against the ancient tradition of the Church; and who withstood those pursuing new inventions with the Christian modesty and gravity in which he excelled, and blamed them by his very right, surpassing all the rest in devotion to the faith as much as he excelled them in the authority of his place; who, injuriously treated and torn by those in error, a great man and a Father endowed with great charity, bore all things with solicitous piety for the good of peace, which conquered in his heart, all things for the good of unity, which he was eager to preserve. And let this suffice for vindicating the manner of proceeding of St Stephen, Roman Pontiff, against the rebaptizers.

DISSERTATIONIS PARS PRIMA.

FIRST PART OF THE DISSERTATION.

Editors' notes and page, col. 1365

Footnotes

(27) · call in col 1365

In praefatione.

In the preface.

(printed under page 734)

(28) · call in col 1365

Vincent. Lirin. Commonit., cap. 9.

Vincent of Lérins, Commonitorium, chapter 9.

(printed under page 734)

(29) · call in col 1365

Augustinus centies in suis Contra Donat. libris, et cum ipso veteres omnes quorum testimonia refert Tomassinus dissertat. II in Concil.

Augustine, a hundred times in his books Against the Donatists, and with him all the ancients, whose testimonies Thomassin reports in his second Dissertation on the Councils.

(printed under page 734)

(30) · call in col 1365

Hieronym. Dialog. adv. Lucifer. et Vincentius Lirin., loc. cit.

Jerome, Dialogue against the Luciferians, and Vincent of Lérins, at the place cited.

(printed under page 734)

(31) · call in col 1365

Euseb. Histor. Eccl. lib. VII, cap. 3.

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book VII, chapter 3.

(printed under page 734)

(32) · call in col 1365

Augustin. lib. II de Bapt. cap. 8.

Augustine, On Baptism, book II, chapter 8.

(printed under page 734)

(33) · call in col 1365

Vincentius Lirin., loc. cit.

Vincent of Lérins, at the place cited.

(printed under page 734)

Page

running head: 1365 PARS II. — RECENTIORU
marginal letters: A (in col. 1366); B (in col. 1366); C (in footnote block, col. 1365); D (in col. 1366)
old-edition numerals: 1312 before monumentis,; 1313 before Quaecunque
other: one full-width line across cols. 1365-1366 not set: DISSERTATIONIS PARS PRIMA.; editors' matter: niis, totum... auctori- (entire column); words split at column breaks: niis (testimoniis), censori-, auctori-
other: a full-width band stands across cols 1365/1366 in mid-page: the 1 paragraph(s) above it in col 1366 are set here, after the 2 above it in col 1365 (reading order, moved on receipt); the band itself (its title lines) is not set by the volunteer page: set it here, at the move, with full_width
other: the word auctoritatem was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1366
running head: 1365 PARS II. — RECENTIORUM EXCURSUS. 1366
marginal letters: A ‹niis, totum suis dent disquisitionibus› / ‹bus de Stephano, si non cogitare›; B ‹deat Stephanus ac ab ipsis divulgetur› / ‹tione in eo vincens quantum loci›; C (beside the footnotes, no text line); D ‹num disserendi et agendi ratio› / ‹subvertendum quod ex Cypriani›
old-edition numerals: 1312 after ‹veterum› (stare veterum)
other (QA Q2a 2026-10-25): the call (27) is printed in col 1365 after "referebamus"; the calls (28)–(33) are not in col 1365's own text (they stand in col 1366, above the band, whose paragraph is set in c1365).
other (QA Q2a 2026-10-25): PLACEMENT: col 1365's own text below the band (the ARGUMENTUM and "1313 Quaecunque fuerit … auctori-") is not in c1365_a; it stands at the head of c1366_a (with auctoritatem joined there). By the --fullwidth rule it belongs here, after DISSERTATIONIS PARS PRIMA., under col 1365's rail, with col 1366 keeping only its own lower text (tatem Tridentinae synodo …). The note above that auctoritatem is joined "here" is not true of this file. The text was checked against the page where it stands (c1366_a) and is complete; fix the placement in c1365/c1366 together.
other (QA Q2a 2026-10-25): italic markup removed from notes (28)–(33) (unit rule: no italic markup).
other (QA Q7 2026-10-25): col 1366's upper paragraph (set here) prints 'præcriptione' (s missing); the file had silently corrected it to praescriptione: set back as printed. The calls (34)–(41) in that paragraph have their notes in n1366; the page prints the call after 'studebat' as (37), a misprint for (39).
misprints kept as printed: praecriptione (for praescriptione); quae ,vicit (stray comma); sollisita (for sollicita); Sthephani (for Stephani)

PL 3:1366

ARGUMENTUM. — Quod ex S. Cypriani facto, adversus supremam et irreformabiiem in definiendis fidei controversiis Romani pontificis auctoritatem extunditur et urgetur argumentum, vacuum a sapientissimis Galliae theologis et inane conficitur, ac penitus evertitur.

ARGUMENT. — The argument which is hammered out and pressed from the deed of St Cyprian against the supreme and irreformable authority of the Roman pontiff in defining controversies of faith is shown by the wisest theologians of France to be empty and vain, and is utterly overthrown.

Quaecunque fuerit ac jactitetur S. Cypriani in causa baptismatis haereticorum in Stephanum disserendi et agendi ratio, nil inde contra supremam et infallibilem Romani pontificis in definiendis fidei controversiis auctoritatem colligi potest si agitatam tunc temporis de rebaptizandis haereticis quaestionem non fidei, sed merae disciplinae rem esse censuit Carthaginensis antistes. Id constat apud omnes atque evidentissimum est. Qui enim praescriptum a Romano pontifice aliquod disciplinae caput amplecti recusat, non propterea Romanum pontificem in definiendis fidei controversiis errori obnoxium esse putat. Sic plura disciplinae capita in Tridentino concilio sancita Gallia minime recepit, quae tamen infallibilem in fidei causis auctoritatem Tridentinae synodo adimere nunquam profecto cogitavit. Porro sapientissimi Galliae theologi caeterorum pontificiae inerrantiae vindicum semitam ingressi, palam agnoscunt et unanimi concentu tradunt totam illam de rebaptizandis haereticis controversiam S. Cypriano visam fuisse rem non fidei, sed merae disciplinae, qua sane doctrina nil validius ad subvertendum quod ex Cypriani facto neoterici adversus pontificiam inerrantiam intorquent argumentum.

Whatever St Cyprian's manner of arguing and acting against Stephen in the cause of the baptism of heretics may have been, and however it is bandied about, nothing can be gathered from it against the supreme and infallible authority of the Roman pontiff in defining controversies of faith, if the bishop of Carthage judged that the question then debated about rebaptizing heretics was a matter not of faith but of mere discipline. This is agreed among all and is most evident. For whoever refuses to embrace some head of discipline prescribed by the Roman pontiff does not on that account think the Roman pontiff liable to error in defining controversies of faith. Thus France did not at all receive several heads of discipline enacted in the Council of Trent, yet she certainly never thought of taking away from the synod of Trent its infallible authority in causes of faith. Moreover the wisest theologians of France, entering on the path of the other defenders of pontifical inerrancy, openly acknowledge and teach with unanimous accord that that whole controversy about rebaptizing heretics seemed to St Cyprian a matter not of faith but of mere discipline; and nothing indeed is stronger than this doctrine for overturning the argument which the moderns twist from Cyprian's deed against pontifical inerrancy.

Praeterea tam decretoria responsione nondum contenti, ut suo tuendae veritatis et pontificiae auctoritatis studio magis ac magis facerent satis, ulterius progrediuntur sapientissimi Galliae doctores, atque ostendunt istud Cypriani exemplum non magis urgeri posse ad inficiandam Romani pontificis, quam Ecclesiae universalis inerrantiam. Enimvero pro certo tenent ac docent S. Cyprianum probe novisse quam Stephanus Romanus pontifiex vindicabat consuetudinem, universalis Ecclesiae fuisse

Furthermore, not yet content with so decisive a reply, in order to satisfy more and more their zeal for defending the truth and the pontifical authority, the wisest doctors of France go further and show that this example of Cyprian can no more be pressed to deny the inerrancy of the Roman pontiff than that of the universal Church. For indeed they hold and teach for certain that St Cyprian knew well that the custom which Stephen, the Roman pontiff, was defending had been that of the universal Church

Editors' notes and page, col. 1366

Footnotes

(34) · call in col 1366

Facundus Hermian. pro Defens. trium. Capitul. lib. X, cap. 3.

Facundus of Hermiane, In Defence of the Three Chapters, book 10, chapter 3.

(printed under page 734)

(35) · call in col 1366

Vincentius Lirin. loc. cit.

Vincent of Lérins, at the place cited.

(printed under page 734)

(36) · call in col 1366

Facundus Hermian. loc. cit.

Facundus of Hermiane, at the place cited.

(printed under page 734)

(37) · call in col 1366

Hieronym. Dialog, adversus Lucifer.

Jerome, Dialogue against the Luciferians.

(printed under page 734)

(38) · call in col 1366

Augustin. lib. V de Bapt. cap. 25.

Augustine, On Baptism, book 5, chapter 25.

(printed under page 734)

(39) · call in col 1366

Id. lib. VI, de Bapt. cap. 22.

The same, On Baptism, book 6, chapter 22.

(printed under page 734)

(40) · call in col 1366

Id. lib. I de Bapt. cap. 7.

The same, On Baptism, book 1, chapter 7.

(printed under page 734)

(41) · call in col 1366

Id. lib. VI, de Bapt. cap. 22.

The same, On Baptism, book 6, chapter 22.

(printed under page 734)

Page

running head: RECENTIORUM EXCURSUS. 1366
marginal letters: A bus de Stephano,; B rabat (35), qui ab; C (in footnote block); D subvertendum quod ex
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the 1 paragraph(s) of this column above the full-width band are set under col 1365 (reading order, moved on receipt)
running head: 1365 PARS II. — RECENTIORUM EXCURSUS. 1366
marginal letters: D ‹num disserendi et agendi ratio, nil inde contra su-› / ‹subvertendum quod ex Cypriani facto neoterici ad-›
old-edition numerals: 1313 before ‹Quaecunque› (line start)
other: this file holds the lower halves of page 734 below the full-width DISSERTATIONIS PARS PRIMA (set in c1365): left col. ARGUMENTUM … 'auctori-', right col. 'tatem Tridentinae' … 'fuisse'. The ARGUMENTUM is printed run-in with its italic text and is set so. 'irreformabiiem' may be a broken l in the type: UNSURE.

PL 3:1367

consuetudinem, ex quo manifestissime sequitur quod si Cyprianus Stephanum illam haereticos absque novo baptismo recipiendi consuetudinem asserentem in fide errare, vel errori obnoxium judicavit, ut volunt Neoterici, in fide pariter errare, vel errori obnoxiam censuit Ecclesiam universam, quam sciebat pro eadem Stephani consuetudine militare: unde vides hoc Neotericorum argumento aeque impetitum iri Romani pontificis et Ecclesiae universalis infallibilitatem. Haud me latet caeterarum nationum theologos pontificiae inerrantiae cultores misero huic Neotericorum argumento omni ex parte nutanti ac vacillanti, pluribus et quidem solidis responsionibus occurrisse; at meo quidem judicio nemo potentius, nemo validius, quam Galliae doctores, dum haec duo apertissime docent, ut totidem capitibus probandum aggredimur, 1o nempe S. Cyprianum agitatam tunc temporis de rebaptizandis haereticis quaestionem, non ad fidei, sed ad merae disciplinae caput revocasse; 2o S. Cyprianum probe novisse, quam Stephanus Romanus pontifex vindicabat consuetudinem, universalis Ecclesiae fuisse consuetudinem.

from which it most manifestly follows that if Cyprian judged that Stephen, when asserting that custom of receiving heretics without a new baptism, erred in faith or was liable to error, as the Moderns wish, he equally judged that the universal Church, which he knew to fight for the same custom of Stephen, erred in faith or was liable to error: whence you see that by this argument of the Moderns the infallibility of the Roman pontiff and of the universal Church will be equally assailed. It does not escape me that the theologians of other nations who reverence pontifical inerrancy have met this wretched argument of the Moderns, tottering and wavering on every side, with many and indeed solid answers; yet in my judgement at least no one has done so more powerfully, no one more validly, than the doctors of France, while they most openly teach these two things, as we undertake to prove in as many chapters: 1st, namely, that St. Cyprian referred the question agitated at that time concerning rebaptizing heretics not to a head of faith, but of mere discipline; 2nd, that St. Cyprian knew well that the custom which Stephen the Roman pontiff vindicated was the custom of the universal Church.

CAPUT PRIMUM.

CHAPTER THE FIRST.

Juxta universalem Galliae theologorum ac scriptorum doctrinam. S. Cyprianus agitatam aevo suo de rebaptizandis haereticis quaestionem, non ad fidem, sed ad meram disciplinam pertinere judicabat.

According to the universal doctrine of the theologians and writers of France, St. Cyprian judged that the question agitated in his age concerning rebaptizing heretics pertained not to faith, but to mere discipline.

Eminentissimus cardinalis de Bissi, episcopus Meldensis, in suo documento pastorali an. 1728. haec habet. part. II: « Juxta sententiam plurium eruditorum theologorum quaestio de baptismo haereticorum S. Cypriani tempore judicabatur ad disciplinam potius quam ad fidem pertinere. Enimvero, S. Cyprianus saepius asserit quemlibet episcopum plenam habere diversum in hoc negotio agendi facultatem; itane loqui potuisset de quaestione quam censuisset ad fidem pertinere? Quemadmodum autem certum est peculiarem disciplinam a qualibet Ecclesia nationali ita retineri posse, ut ad eam mutandam a Romano pontifice obligari non possit, S. Cyprianus et episcopi Africani poterant, salva obedientia Sedi Apostolicae debita, illius decreto non obtemperare. » Et in docum. pastor. an. 1725: « Quotidie, inquit, propugnatur in scholis catholicis de una Cyprianum inter et Stephanum disciplina fuisse disputatum. »

The most eminent Cardinal de Bissy, bishop of Meaux, in his pastoral instruction of the year 1728, part 2, has these words: "According to the opinion of many learned theologians, the question concerning the baptism of heretics in the time of St. Cyprian was judged to pertain to discipline rather than to faith. For in truth St. Cyprian quite often asserts that every bishop has full faculty of acting differently in this business; could he have spoken thus concerning a question which he had judged to pertain to faith? Now just as it is certain that a particular discipline can be so retained by any national Church that it cannot be obliged by the Roman pontiff to change it, St. Cyprian and the African bishops could, saving the obedience due to the Apostolic See, not obey its decree." And in the pastoral instruction of the year 1725: "Daily," says he, "it is maintained in the Catholic schools that the dispute between Cyprian and Stephen was concerning discipline alone."

Illustrissimus Languet, alias Suessionensis antistes, nunc Senonensis archiepiscopus in tertia ad episcop. Bononiensem epistola, data die 25 Maii an. 1722 « S. Cyprianus suam de baptismo haereticorum cum Romana Sede concertationem ut punctum

The most illustrious Languet, formerly prelate of Soissons, now archbishop of Sens, in his third letter to the bishop of Boulogne, dated the 25th day of May in the year 1722, says: "St. Cyprian held his controversy with the Roman See concerning the baptism of heretics as a point

Editors' notes and page, col. 1367

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: decreto non obtemperare› · call in col 1367

Intruction pastor. contre l'appel interjeté de la bulle Unig. au futur concile général, pag. 63.

Pastoral Instruction against the appeal lodged from the bull Unigenitus to a future general council, page 63.

(printed under page 735)

(2) ‹anchor: disciplina fuisse disputatum› · call in col 1367

Inst. Pastor. contenant la réfutation d'un écrit adopté, etc., pag. 55.

Pastoral Instruction containing the refutation of a writing adopted, etc., page 55.

(printed under page 735)

Page

running head: 1367 DE HAERETICORUM BA
marginal letters: A (in col. 1368); B (in col. 1368); C (in col. 1368); D (in col. 1368)
old-edition numerals: 1314 before inerrantiae
other: editors' matter: consuetudinem, ex... pun- (entire column); word split at end of column: pun-
other: the word punctum was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1368

PL 3:1368

merae disciplinae habebat, quod fidem nullatenus spectabat; de hoc conveniunt eruditi post divum Hieronymum. » Idem repetit in altera epistola ad episcopum Antissiodor., scripta die 25 Decembris 1722, num. 27. Item in pastor. documento varias circa Emin. de Noailles instructionem observationes continente, an. 1719, p. 95 et 96.

of mere discipline, which in no way regarded faith; upon this the learned since St. Jerome agree." He repeats the same in another letter to the bishop of Auxerre, written on the 25th day of December, 1722, number 27. Likewise in the pastoral instruction containing various observations concerning the instruction of His Eminence de Noailles, of the year 1719, pages 95 and 96.

Illustrissimus de Saleon, episcopus Ruthenensis, in docum, pastor, super auctoritate decisionum Ecclesiae: « S. Cyprianus, inquit, hanc de baptismo haereticorum controversiam ad fidem pertinere non censuit. » Thesim hanc variis dende firmat argumentis; « non modo S. Cyprianus, » pergit eruditus antistes, « atque Firmilianus, sed etiam Arelatense concilium illam de rebaptizandis haereticis controversiam ut punctum disciplinae habuerunt. »

The most illustrious de Saléon, bishop of Rodez, in his pastoral instruction upon the authority of the decisions of the Church, says: "St. Cyprian did not judge that this controversy concerning the baptism of heretics pertained to faith." This thesis he next confirms by various arguments; "Not only St. Cyprian," continues the learned prelate, "and Firmilian, but also the Council of Arles held that controversy concerning rebaptizing heretics as a point of discipline."

Ludovicus Thomassinus... (Ejus habes dissert. supra).

Louis Thomassin... (You have his dissertation above).

Ludovicus Dupin. in sua Biblioth. ecclesiast. « Cyprianus, inquit, Stephanum in sua epistola hortabatur, ut hanc (de rebaptiz. haeretic.) disciplinam amplecteretur. » Et pag. 469: « Firmilianus confirmat disciplinam quam L. Cyprianus propugnabat... »

Louis Dupin, in his Ecclesiastical Library, says: "Cyprian in his letter exhorted Stephen to embrace this discipline (concerning rebaptizing heretics)." And page 469: "Firmilian confirms the discipline which St. Cyprian maintained..."

Launoius in sua ad Bevilaquam epistola, num. 15: « Becanus, » inquit, pag. 827, « post Bellarminum, ut adulatrici curiae faveat, opinionis novae subsidio dicit: Cyprianus non est habitus haereticus, quasi quae ad variam tradendi baptismatis rationem pertinent, haereseos materia foret; » et p. 828: « Interim ego tantum pronuntio rem istam (rebaptizationis quaestionem) non esse fidei, sed disciplinae quae suas in Ecclesia vices habuit. »

Launoy, in his letter to Bevilacqua, number 15, page 827, says: "Becanus, after Bellarmine, in order to favour a flattering court, by the help of a new opinion says: Cyprian was not accounted a heretic, as though the things which pertain to the varied manner of administering baptism were matter of heresy"; and page 828: "Meanwhile I only pronounce that that matter (the question of rebaptism) is not of faith, but of discipline, which has had its changes in the Church."

Antonius Pagius, doctor Sorbonicus, in sua Critica Baron. « Dogma, inquit tom. I, pag. 200, de rebaptizandis haereticis, quod episcopi Africani tuebantur, habebatur ab illis tanquam ad oeconomiam duntaxat et disciplinam, non vero ad fidem pertinere, quod patet ex epistola Cypriani et synodi Africanae ad Stephanum Romanum pontificem...... Controversiam itaque de haereticorum baptismo ad fidem non spectare Cyprianus ejusque collegae censebant. »

Antoine Pagi, doctor of the Sorbonne, in his Critique of Baronius, volume 1, page 200, says: "The dogma concerning rebaptizing heretics, which the African bishops defended, was held by them as pertaining solely to economy and discipline, and not to faith, which is plain from the letter of Cyprian and the African synod to Stephen the Roman pontiff... Cyprian and his colleagues therefore judged that the controversy concerning the baptism of heretics did not regard faith."

Gaspar Juenin, Oratorii Gallicani presbyter, in suo historico et dogmat, de Sacramentis commentario sic loquitur: « Africani Orientales causam de baptismate ad meram disciplinam, non autem ad fidem aut ad mores pertinere judicarunt... Quod autem laudati episcopi tum in Africa tum in Oriente quaestionem de baptismo ad meram disciplinam referrent, ex multis capitibus evincitur. Firmilianus, salvo unitatis vinculo, ea in causa dissentiri posse perspicue affirmat... Cyprianis idem in Africa sensit, » etc.

Gaspard Juénin, presbyter of the French Oratory, in his historical and dogmatic commentary On the Sacraments, speaks thus: "The Africans and Easterns judged that the cause concerning baptism pertained to mere discipline, and not to faith or to morals... Now that the praised bishops both in Africa and in the East referred the question concerning baptism to mere discipline is proved from many heads. Firmilian clearly affirms that one may dissent in that cause saving the bond of unity... Cyprian thought the same in Africa," etc.

Editors' notes and page, col. 1368

Footnotes

(3) ‹anchor: ca sensit, » etc.› · call in col 1368

Quaest. VI, cap. 2, art. 3, § 3, pag. 99, edit. Dugdun., 1966.

Question 6, chapter 2, article 3, § 3, page 99, Lyons edition, "1966" [as printed].

(printed under page 735)

Page

running head: TICORUM BAPTISMATE. 1368
marginal letters: A ctum merae disciplinae; B Ludovicus Thomassinus... (Ejus; C istam (rebaptizationis quaestionem); D baptismate ad meram
old-edition numerals: 1315 before in
other: editors' matter: ctum merae... etc. (entire column); word split from preceding column: ctum (punctum)

PL 3:1369

Feu doctor et pastor Parisiensis in suo de Legibus tractatu: « Respondeo, inquit, de variis consuetudinibus non esse disceptandum saltem acriter et cum pacis catholicae periculo, ut docet August. epist. 118, ad Januarium, » quod neque contra fidem neque contra bonos mores injungitur, est indifferenter habendum; « in eadem versati fuerant sententia SS. Cyprianus et Firmilianus in epist. 71 et 72: tradit quippe S. Cyprianus cuilibet liberum esse sentire quod Deus suaserit, nec quemquam ob sententiam diversam, abscindendum esse a communione ecclesiastica, ideoque tractatum de Poenitentiae (legendum, Patientiae) bono composuit, ut a fratribus qui dissiderent secedendum non esse ostenderet. Sanctus quoque Firmilianus eadem ad S. Cyprianum scribit et usu tunc temporis recepto confirmat: Multa, inquit pro locorum et nominum diversitate variantur, neque propter hoc ab Ecclesiae catholicae pace atque unitate aliquando discessum est... »

Feu, doctor and pastor of Paris, in his treatise On Laws, says: "I answer that concerning varied customs one ought not to debate, at least sharply and with danger to Catholic peace, as Augustine teaches in Letter 118, To Januarius: what is enjoined neither against faith nor against good morals is to be held indifferently; in the same opinion had SS. Cyprian and Firmilian been versed in Letters 71 and 72: for St. Cyprian hands down that each one is free to think what God has persuaded him, and that no one on account of a different opinion ought to be cut off from ecclesiastical communion, and therefore he composed the treatise On the Good of Penance (read: Patience), to show that one ought not to withdraw from brethren who disagreed. St. Firmilian also writes the same things to St. Cyprian and confirms them by the usage received at that time: Many things, says he, are varied according to the diversity of places and names, nor on this account has there ever been a departure from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church..."

Theologicae institutiones, jussu illustriss. episcopi Pietaviensis editae, haec habent in tractatu de Sacramentis: « Nota nec S. Cyprianum nec episcopos ipsis adhaerentes haereticis annumerandos, quia ejusmodi quaestio de haereticorum Baptismo censebatur tunc ad disciplinam non autem ad fidem pertinere. »

The Theological Institutions, published by command of the most illustrious Bishop of Poitiers, have these words in the treatise On the Sacraments: "Note that neither St. Cyprian nor the bishops adhering to him are to be numbered among heretics, because a question of that sort concerning the Baptism of heretics was then judged to pertain to discipline and not to faith."

Natalis Alexander in Ecclesiat., saeculi III, Historiam hanc ex professo probat propositionem: « S. Cyprianus et Africani episcopi non existimaverunt dogma de rebaptizandis haereticis quod tuebantur ad fidem pertinere; » allatisque pluribus ad hujus probationem momentis sic concludit: « Si rebaptizationem haereticorum fidei rem esse existimasset S. Cyprianus, anathema dixisset eis qui contrariam sententiam tuebantur, neque cum eis communicasset; nefas enim censebat communione jungi cum haereticis. Quaestionem igitur illam ad fidem pertinere non existimavit, sed ad oeconomiam duntaxat et disciplinam ecclesiasticam. »

Noël Alexandre, in his Ecclesiastical History of the Third Century, expressly proves this proposition: "St. Cyprian and the African bishops did not think that the dogma concerning rebaptizing heretics which they defended pertained to faith"; and after bringing forward several considerations for the proof of this, he concludes thus: "If St. Cyprian had thought that the rebaptism of heretics was a matter of faith, he would have pronounced anathema against those who defended the contrary opinion, nor would he have communicated with them; for he judged it a wicked thing to be joined in communion with heretics. He did not therefore think that that question pertained to faith, but solely to economy and ecclesiastical discipline."

Auctor tractatus Gallice inscripti: Traité du schisme, sic loquitur pag. 45: « In dissidio S. Cypriani et S. Stephani unice agetur de puncto aliquo disciplinae, non vero fidei. »

The author of the treatise entitled in French Traité du schisme speaks thus on page 45: "In the disagreement of St. Cyprian and St. Stephen it is a question solely of some point of discipline, and not of faith."

Auctor operis cui titulus: Traité sur l'obéissance due aux Bulles dogmatiques émanées du Saint-Siège, « Omnes, » inquit, pag. 91, » fatentur auctores negotium de rebaptiz. haeret. ut punctum disciplinae duntaxat Cypriani tempore habitum fuisse. »

The author of the work entitled Traité sur l'obéissance due aux Bulles dogmatiques émanées du Saint-Siège says on page 91: "All authors confess that the business concerning rebaptizing heretics was held in the time of Cyprian solely as a point of discipline."

Ignatius Amat de Graveson, doctor Sorbonicus, in sua Historia ecclesiastistica: « Excusari possunt, » inquit, « Cyprianus, Firmilianus aliique Orientales, qui morem rebaptizandi haereticos

Ignace Hyacinthe Amat de Graveson, doctor of the Sorbonne, in his Ecclesiastical History, says: "Cyprian, Firmilian, and the other Easterns can be excused, who followed the custom of rebaptizing heretics

Editors' notes and page, col. 1369

Footnotes

(4) ‹anchor: ad fidem pertinere› · call in col 1369

Quaest. III, p. 77, edit. Pictav. 1731.

Question 3, page 77, Poitiers edition, 1731.

(printed under page 736)

(5) ‹anchor: ad fidem pertinere› · call in col 1369

Dissert. XII, art. 4, pag. 690, edit. Paris. 1714.

Dissertation 12, article 4, page 690, Paris edition, 1714.

(printed under page 736)

(6) · call in col 1369

Tom. I, Colloq. VI, pag. 149. edit. Rom. 1722.

Volume 1, Colloquy 6, page 149, Rome edition, 1722.

(printed under page 736)

Page

running head: 1369 PARS II. — RECENTIORUM
marginal letters: A (in col. 1370); B (in col. 1370); C (in col. 1370); D (in col. 1370)
old-edition numerals: 1316 before et
other: editors' matter: Feu doctor... haere- (entire column); word split at end of column: haere-
other: the word haereticos was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1370

PL 3:1370

post Stephani decretum sectati sunt, quia existimarunt morem istum ad fidem minime pertinere, sed ad oeconomiam duntaxat et disciplinam ecclesiasticam. »

after the decree of Stephen, because they thought that that custom pertained by no means to faith, but solely to economy and ecclesiastical discipline."

Auctor operis Gallice inscripti: Théorie et pratique des sacrements, in tract. de Baptismo, c. 4, § 2: « Quaeris, » inquit, « utrum qui antiqui Patres baptismum ab haereticis collatum invalidum esse censuerunt, id spectaverint tanquam punctum quod fidem spectaret; respondemus veteres illos Patres rem illam ad meram disciplinam revocasse, quae pro temporum et locorum varietate diversa esse poterat; ita Firmilianus, qui, etc.: ita S. Cyprianus. »

The author of the work entitled in French Théorie et pratique des sacrements, in the treatise On Baptism, chapter 4, section 2, says: "You ask whether the ancient Fathers who judged that baptism conferred by heretics was invalid looked upon this as a point which regarded faith; we answer that those ancient Fathers referred that matter to mere discipline, which could be diverse according to the variety of times and places; thus Firmilian, who, etc.; thus St. Cyprian."

Auctor dissertationis Gallicae contra appellationem a constitutione Unigenitus ad futurum concilium sic loquitur: « SS. Stephanus et Cyprianus hanc de baptismo haereticorum quaestionem ad meram disciplinam revocabant. » Et paulo post: « Cypriani adversus Stephanum resistentia aliter excusari non potest, quam quia causa de baptismo haereticorum utrinque agitabatur ut quaestio praxis ac purae diciplinae. »

The author of the French dissertation against the appeal from the constitution Unigenitus to a future council speaks thus: "SS. Stephen and Cyprian referred this question concerning the baptism of heretics to mere discipline." And a little after: "The resistance of Cyprian against Stephen cannot be excused otherwise than because the cause concerning the baptism of heretics was agitated on both sides as a question of practice and of pure discipline."

Petitdidier, abbas Sancti Petri Senonensis, in suo de Infallibilitate pontificia, Gallico tractatu, cap. 6: « Hoc itaque, » inquit, « constanter et certissime tenendum est, quaestionem de baptismate haereticorum Cypriano visam fuisse punctum merae disciplinae. »

Petitdidier, abbot of Saint-Pierre of Senones, in his French treatise On Pontifical Infallibility, chapter 6, says: "This therefore must constantly and most certainly be held, that the question concerning the baptism of heretics seemed to Cyprian a point of mere discipline."

Petrus Coustant, monachus Benedict. Gongreg. S. Mauri, in suo de Epistolis Romanorum pontificum opere haec habet: « Ne igitur majores suos ac totam pene Ecclesiam damnare Cyprianus videretur, episcoporum unicuique permisit sentire vel agere quod melius judicaret: ideoque istam quaestionem (de baptism. haeret.) ad meram disciplinam pertinere existimavit. »

Pierre Coustant, Benedictine monk of the Congregation of St. Maur, in his work On the Epistles of the Roman Pontiffs, has these words: "Lest therefore Cyprian should seem to condemn his ancestors and almost the whole Church, he permitted each one of the bishops to think or act what he judged better: and therefore he thought that that question (concerning the baptism of heretics) pertained to mere discipline."

De Reveroni, licenciatus Sorbonicus, in sua Dissertatione dogmatica de Dissidio inter SS. Stephanum et Cyprianum, haec habet cap. 1: « Cyprianus rebaptizationem ascripsit disciplinae nudae, haec sententia pro qua stamus probatur multis. »

De Reveroni, licentiate of the Sorbonne, in his Dogmatic Dissertation on the Disagreement between SS. Stephen and Cyprian, chapter 1, has these words: "Cyprian ascribed rebaptism to bare discipline; this opinion, for which we stand, is proved by many arguments."

Turnellius doctor et professor Sorbonicus, in suo de Sacramentis tractatu, sic loquitur: « Hanc de baptismo haereticorum causam Stephano quidem ad dogma fidei pertinere visam fuisse, ut mox ostendemus, non vero Cypriano, Firmiliano et aliis. » Et pag. 435: « Stephano igitur reluctatus est Cyprianus, quare? Quia, Africanae libertatis plus aequo amans ac studiosus, aliunde vero propter intentatam a Stephano excommunicationis poenam subinfensus, negabat Romanum pontificem jus habere in rebus disciplinae, qualem putabat esse quaestionem de baptismo ab haereticis, collato, caeteras Ecclesias ad suam sententiam et praxim adigendi?

Tournely, doctor and professor of the Sorbonne, in his treatise On the Sacraments, speaks thus: "That this cause concerning the baptism of heretics seemed to Stephen indeed to pertain to a dogma of faith, as we shall presently show, yet not to Cyprian, Firmilian, and others." And page 435: "Cyprian therefore struggled against Stephen; wherefore? Because, loving and zealous for African liberty more than was fair, and on the other hand somewhat incensed on account of the punishment of excommunication threatened by Stephen, he denied that the Roman pontiff had the right in matters of discipline, such as he thought the question concerning baptism conferred by heretics to be, of compelling the other Churches to his own opinion and practice;

Editors' notes and page, col. 1370

Footnotes

(7) ‹anchor: pertinere existimavit› · call in col 1370

Tom. I, pag. 233, edit. Paris. 1721.

Volume 1, page 233, Paris edition, 1721.

(printed under page 736)

Page

running head: RECENTIORUM EXCURSUS. 1370
marginal letters: A ticos post Stephani; B lium sic loquitur:; C opere haec habet:; D dogma fidei pertinere
old-edition numerals: 1317 before varietate
other: question mark after adigendi? is a misprint for semicolon or colon; editors' matter: ticos post... adigendi? (entire column); word split from preceding column: ticos (haereticos)

PL 3:1371

longius profecto quam par sit progressus S. Martyr. omnes subordinationis ac jurisdictionis ecclesiasticae leges subvertere videtur, neque aliter excusari potest, quam si verbo ipsius ad unam de disciplina quaestionem restringantur. »

having advanced assuredly further than is fitting, the holy Martyr seems to subvert all the laws of ecclesiastical subordination and jurisdiction, nor can he be excused otherwise than if his words be restricted to a question of discipline alone."

Annodius Boucat, Parisiensis theologus, in suo de Sacramentis tractatu: « Hanc, » inquit pag. 371, « de rebaptizandis haereticis controversiam tertio saeculo et quarto etiam inchoante, de mera exstitisse disciplina non uno probatur argumento: 1. Quidem eo quod SS. Cyprianus et Firmilianus unitatem cum S. pontifice semper servaverint, » etc. Et sic concludit pag. 375: « Sequitur ex his nec Cyprianum et Firmilianum peccasse, cum in hoc tantummodo disciplinam quam putabant genuinam defenderent. »

Antoine Boucat, theologian of Paris, in his treatise On the Sacraments, page 371, says: "That this controversy concerning rebaptizing heretics in the third century and even at the beginning of the fourth was concerning mere discipline, is proved by more than one argument: 1. Indeed because SS. Cyprian and Firmilian always kept unity with the holy pontiff," etc. And thus he concludes on page 375: "It follows from these things that neither Cyprian nor Firmilian sinned, since in this they defended only the discipline which they thought genuine."

Qui vulgo apud Gallos appellatur Petit Tournelli seu Latine Turnellius contractus, in tractatu de Sacramentis, « Totam hanc, inquit, controversiam (de bapt. haeret.) pertinere ad disciplinam, in qua cuique liberum est sentire ac facere quod vellet, existimabat Cyprianus; » idque multis probat argumentis pag. 137 et seqq.

He who is commonly called among the French Petit Tournely, or in Latin Tournely Abridged, in the treatise On the Sacraments, says: "Cyprian thought that this whole controversy (concerning the baptism of heretics) pertained to discipline, wherein each one is free to think and do what he wishes"; and this he proves by many arguments on page 137 and the following.

Jacobus Hyacinthus Serri, doctor Sorbonicus in sua de Romano pontifice falli et fallere nescio Dissertatione, edita an. 1734, cap. 8, pag. 52: « Reponimus, » inquit, « divum Cyprianum caeterosque episcopos Africanos existimasse quaestionem de rebaptiz. haereticis ad meram disciplinam spectare, nequaquam ad fidem; ideoque nil mirum si decreto Stephani primi R. P. obstiterint Africani, quod nempe putarint Ecclesias toto orbe diffusas non omnino teneri ad Ecclesiae Romanae disciplinam in omnibus amplectendam, etsi ad ejus fidem communiter amplectendam tenerentur. »

Jacques Hyacinthe Serry, doctor of the Sorbonne, in his Dissertation on the Roman Pontiff Unable to Be Deceived and to Deceive, published in the year 1734, chapter 8, page 52, says: "We reply that St. Cyprian and the rest of the African bishops thought that the question concerning rebaptizing heretics regarded mere discipline, and by no means faith; and therefore it is no wonder if the Africans withstood the decree of Stephen I, the Roman Pontiff, namely because they thought that the Churches diffused throughout the whole world were not altogether bound to embrace the discipline of the Roman Church in all things, although they were bound commonly to embrace her faith."

His astipulari merito censedi sunt qui nitide testantur Cyprianum suae opinionis originem non a Christo, non ab apostolis, sed ab Agrippino praedecessore suo repetiisse; ex hoc enim necessario sequitur Cyprianum non fidei, sed merae disciplinae suam opinionem retulisse, nisi velint (quod de scriptoribus mox citandis nemo suspicabitur) tanta Cyprianum ignorantia laborasse, ut ad fidem aliquatenus pertinere crediderit, quod ab Agrippino ortum habere censebat: ii vero sunt:

With these men those are deservedly to be judged to agree who clearly testify that Cyprian traced the origin of his opinion not from Christ, not from the apostles, but from Agrippinus his predecessor; for from this it necessarily follows that Cyprian referred his opinion not to faith, but to mere discipline, unless they wish (what no one will suspect of the writers presently to be cited) that Cyprian laboured under so great ignorance as to believe that what he judged to have its origin from Agrippinus pertained in any way to faith: now these men are:

Isambertus, doctor et professor Sorbonicus, ad quaestionem 74, ubi de sacramentis: « Agrippinus, » inquit, « praedecessor S. Cypriani in episcopatu, primus censuit baptismum collatum ab haereticis esse nullum: S. Augustinus refert lib. II contr. Donat. cap. 7, ex ipsomet S. Cypriano Epist. ad Quintum, et Epist. ad Jubaian., Cyprianus in epistola citata ad Jubaian... dicit se rem non quidem ita repentinam, sed tamen ab Agrippino

Isambert, doctor and professor of the Sorbonne, at question 74, where he treats of the sacraments: "Agrippinus," says he, "the predecessor of St. Cyprian in the episcopate, first judged that baptism conferred by heretics is null: St. Augustine relates in book 2 Against the Donatists, chapter 7, from St. Cyprian himself in the Letter to Quintus and the Letter to Jubaianus, that Cyprian in the cited letter to Jubaianus... says that he does a thing not indeed so sudden, yet instituted by Agrippinus,

Editors' notes and page, col. 1371

Footnotes

(8) · call in col 1371

Quaest. VII, art. 3, pag. 130, edit. Paris 1730.

Question 7, article 3, page 130, Paris edition, 1730.

(printed under page 737)

(9) ‹anchor: ubi de sacramentis› · call in col 1371

Disput. IV, art. 1, pag. 121, edit. Paris. 1639.

Disputation 4, article 1, page 121, Paris edition, 1639.

(printed under page 737)

(10) · call in col 1371

Art. III, quaest. 3, pag. 88, edit. Paris 1677.

Article 3, question 3, page 88, Paris edition, 1677.

(printed under page 737)

Page

running head: 1371 DE HAERETICORUM BA
marginal letters: A (in col. 1372); B (in col. 1372); C (in col. 1372); D (in col. 1372)
old-edition numerals: 1312 after Sacramentis,
other: oldnum 1312 is a misprint for 1318; editors' matter: longius profecto... Agrip- (entire column); word split at end of column: Agrip-
other: the word Agrippino was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1372

PL 3:1372

uno ex suis praedecessoribus institutam facere... deinde tam in illa epistola quam in concilio LXXXVII episcoporum ait ratione et veritatem esse proponendam consuetudini; ergo supponit traditionem fuisse contrariam suae opinioni. »

one of his predecessors... next, both in that letter and in the council of eighty-seven bishops, he says that reason and truth must be preferred to custom; therefore he supposes that tradition was contrary to his opinion."

Claudius Frassen, doctor Sorbonicus, in tractatu de Sacramentis: « Agrippinus, » inquit, « primus omnium censuit ac definiit nullum esse baptismum haereticorum.... si enim alius antiquior dogma istud traddisset, haud dubie laudaretur a S. Cypriano. »

Claude Frassen, doctor of the Sorbonne, in the treatise On the Sacraments, says: "Agrippinus first of all judged and defined that the baptism of heretics is null... for if another more ancient had handed down that dogma, without doubt he would be praised by St. Cyprian."

Tillemontius, Hist Eccl.: « S. Cyprianus, » inquit, « satis aperte fatetur se antiquam non sequi consuetudinem in recipiendis ab haereticis baptizatis. » Et infra: « S. Cyprianus et Augustinus Agrippino tribuunt rebaptizationis originem. »

Tillemont, Ecclesiastical History, says: "St. Cyprian openly enough confesses that he does not follow the ancient custom in receiving those baptized by heretics." And below: "St. Cyprian and Augustine attribute the origin of rebaptism to Agrippinus."

Fleuriacus in sua Historia Ecclesiastica: « S. Cyprianus, » inquit, « ostendit in suo de Unitate Ecclesiae tractatu ab Agrippino, qui primus antiquam mutaverat consuetudinem, suam de rebapt. haereticis opinionem accepisse. »

Fleury, in his Ecclesiastical History, says: "St. Cyprian shows in his treatise On the Unity of the Church that he received his opinion concerning rebaptizing heretics from Agrippinus, who had first changed the ancient custom."

Baillet, de Vitis sanctorum, ad diem 16 Decembris, pag. 188: « S. Cyprianus, » inquit, « suae opinionis adinventor non fuit, sed, ut ipse fatetur in suo de Ecclesiae Unitate tractatu, eam accepit ab Agrippino, qui antiquam in Africa mutaverat consuetudinem. »

Baillet, On the Lives of the Saints, at the 16th day of December, page 188, says: "St. Cyprian was not the inventor of his opinion, but, as he himself confesses in his treatise On the Unity of the Church, received it from Agrippinus, who had changed the ancient custom in Africa."

Auctor operis cui titulus; Remarques sur la biblioth. des Auteurs ecclésiastiques de M. Dupin, sic loquitur: « Observari potest quod Cyprianus in quaestione baptismatis haeretic, fatebatur traditionem Ecclesiae non tantum Romanae, sed etiam Africanae suae opinioni esse contrariam; agnoscebat Cyprianus Agrippinum primum fuisse qui in Africa coeperat haereticos rebaptizare. »

The author of the work entitled Remarques sur la bibliothèque des Auteurs ecclésiastiques de M. Dupin speaks thus: "It can be observed that Cyprian in the question of the baptism of heretics confessed that the tradition not only of the Roman Church, but also of the African Church was contrary to his opinion; Cyprian recognized that Agrippinus was the first who in Africa had begun to rebaptize heretics."

L'Herminie, doctor Sorbonicus, in tractatu de Sacramentis: « Primus, » inquit, « hanc consuetudinem iterum baptizandi ab haereticis baptizatos introduxit Agrippinus Carthaginen. episcopus, teste S. Cypriano. » Et pag. 133: « Cyprianus tacite fatebatur sibi adversari antiquam Ecclesiae Occidentalis consuetudinem. »

L'Herminier, doctor of the Sorbonne, in the treatise On the Sacraments, says: "Agrippinus, bishop of Carthage, first introduced this custom of baptizing a second time those baptized by heretics, as St. Cyprian testifies." And page 133: "Cyprian tacitly confessed that the ancient custom of the Western Church was opposed to him."

Eruditus P. Maran, Benedictinus, in Praefatione quam Baluzianae Cypriani operum editioni praefixit, haec habet: « Cyprianus opinionis suae de tingendis in haeresi baptizatis fontem et caput Agrippinum agnoscit. » Id nec ipse diffiteri potuit Vitae Cyprianicae auctor: « S. Augustinus, » inquit, « et S. Cyprianus hujusce rebaptizandi praxis originem ad Agrippinum referunt. »

The learned Father Maran, Benedictine, in the Preface which he prefixed to the Baluzian edition of the works of Cyprian, has these words: "Cyprian recognizes Agrippinus as the fountain and head of his opinion concerning dipping those baptized in heresy." Nor could the author of the Life of Cyprian himself deny this: "St. Augustine," says he, "and St. Cyprian refer the origin of this practice of rebaptizing to Agrippinus."

Tandem Cyprianum non fidei, sed merae devovisse disciplinae controversiam de rebaptiz. haereticis docet aetate nostra schola Sorbonica pariter ac Navarica. Danesius doctor ac professor Sorbonicus

Finally, that Cyprian assigned the controversy concerning rebaptizing heretics not to faith, but to mere discipline, the school of the Sorbonne equally with that of Navarre teaches in our age. Danès, doctor and professor of the Sorbonne,

Editors' notes and page, col. 1372

Footnotes

(11) · call in col 1372

Tom. IV, art. 43, pag. 13, pag. 139.

Volume 4, article 43, page 13, page 139.

(printed under page 737)

(12) ‹anchor: haereticos rebaptizare› · call in col 1372

Tom. I, pag. 275, edit. Paris 1791,

Volume 1, page 275, Paris edition, 1791.

(printed under page 737)

(13) ‹anchor: haec habet› · call in col 1372

Pag. 13, edit. Paris. 1726.

Page 13, Paris edition, 1726.

(printed under page 737)

(14) ‹anchor: ad Agrippinum referunt› · call in col 1372

Lib. V, cap. 1.

Book 5, chapter 1.

(printed under page 737)

Page

running head: TICORUM BAPTISMATE. 1372
marginal letters: A pino uno ex; B Fleuriacus in sua; C nem Ecclesiae non; D pinum agnoscit. »
old-edition numerals: 1319 before consuetudinem,
other: editors' matter: pino uno... Sorbonicus (entire column); word split from preceding column: pino (Agrippino)

PL 3:1373

in suis Theologicis de Ecclesia praelectionibus in Sorbona habitis an. 1717: « Polycrates, inquit, disput. 2, quaest. 1, art, 3, conclus. 4, in responsione ad. III instantiam primae objectionis, et Cyprianus existimabant, licet immerito, agi inter se et Romanum Pontificem de eo genere disciplinae circa quam unicuique Ecclesiae concessum est quod expedire sibi magis visum fuerit sequi... unde Cyprianus disertis verbis dicit in Epist. ad Jubaian. agi ea de re inter ipsum et Romanum Pontificem, de qua unusquisque episcopus liberum habet arbitrium judicandi, rationem soli Deo redditurus. Siccine locutus fuisset S. Martyr de quaestione quam putaret pertinere ad fidem, aut in qua ab universali Ecclesia decretum edi posse existimaret, cui obedire omnes et singuli episcopi astricti essent? »

in his Theological Prelections on the Church delivered in the Sorbonne in the year 1717, disputation 2, question 1, article 3, conclusion 4, in the answer to the 3rd instance of the first objection, says: "Polycrates and Cyprian thought, albeit undeservedly, that between themselves and the Roman Pontiff it was a question of that kind of discipline concerning which each Church is permitted to follow what seems to herself more expedient... whence Cyprian in express words says in the Letter to Jubaianus that between himself and the Roman Pontiff it is a question of that matter concerning which each bishop has free judgement of deciding, being about to render an account to God alone. Would the holy Martyr have spoken thus concerning a question which he thought pertained to faith, or wherein he thought a decree could be issued by the universal Church, which all and singular bishops would be bound to obey?"

Sovestre, doctor et professor Navarricus, in suis Theologicis de Sacramentis praelectionibus, Navarrae habitis, an. 1738: « Paulo durioribus, » inquit art. 6, § 2, « verbis conquesti sunt Cyprianus et Firmilianus de Stephani agendi ratione. Quid ita? quia Cyprianus et Firmilianus quaestionem hanc tanquam merae disciplinae spectabant; » ibique multis probat Cyprianum existimasse hanc de baptismo haereticorum quaestionem « pertinere ad disciplinam tantum. »

Sovestre, doctor and professor of Navarre, in his Theological Prelections on the Sacraments delivered at Navarre in the year 1738, article 6, section 2, says: "In somewhat harsher words Cyprian and Firmilian complained of Stephen's manner of acting. Why so? Because Cyprian and Firmilian looked upon this question as one of mere discipline"; and there he proves by many arguments that Cyprian thought that this question concerning the baptism of heretics "pertained to discipline only."

Brillon, doctor et professsor Sorbonicus, Beuret doctor et professor Navarricus, in suis Theologicis de Sacramentis praelectionibus in Sorbona habitis, an. 1730, Navarrae autem an. 1742, docent S. Cyprianum rebaptizationis haereticorum originem ad Agrippinum tanquam ad primum ejus parentem revocasse.

Brillon, doctor and professor of the Sorbonne, and Beuret, doctor and professor of Navarre, in their Theological Prelections on the Sacraments delivered in the Sorbonne in the year 1730, and at Navarre in the year 1742, teach that St. Cyprian referred the origin of the rebaptism of heretics to Agrippinus as to its first parent.

Quid amplius? testantur ipsimet Sorbonici professores communem aetate nostra theologorum esse sententiam quod S. Cyprianus non ad fidem, sed ad meram disciplinam pertinere censuerit causam de Baptismate haereticorum.

What more? The professors of the Sorbonne themselves testify that it is the common opinion of theologians in our age that St. Cyprian judged the cause concerning the Baptism of heretics to pertain not to faith, but to mere discipline.

Ex his omnibus manifestissime liquet universalem esse Galliae theologorum sententiam, quod S. Cyprianus hanc de rebaptizandis haereticis controversiam non fidei sed merae disciplinae ascribebat. Haud quidem me latet ex Jansenianis et Quesnelistis plures, ut viam sibi sternant ad inficiandam Ecclesiae, ut vulgo dicitur dispersae, inerrantiam, contendere ac vociferari S. Cyprianum in hac quaestione agi de dogmate censuisse; verum ubi a communi catholicorum Galliae theologorum doctrina recedunt, neminem fore puto Gallis adeo infensum ac iniquum, ut a Jansenianis et Quesnelistis potius quam a Catholicis genuinos ipsorum sensus depromendos esse velit.

From all these things it is most manifestly clear that it is the universal opinion of the theologians of France that St. Cyprian ascribed this controversy concerning rebaptizing heretics not to faith, but to mere discipline. It does not indeed escape me that several of the Jansenists and Quesnellists, in order to pave a way for themselves for denying the inerrancy of the Church dispersed, as it is commonly called, contend and vociferate that St. Cyprian judged that in this question it was a matter of dogma; yet where they depart from the common doctrine of the Catholic theologians of France, I think no one will be so hostile and unfair to the French as to wish their genuine sentiments to be drawn from Jansenists and Quesnellists rather than from Catholics.

CAPUT. II

CHAPTER II.

Juxta universalem Galliae theologorum ac scriptorum doctrinam S. Cyprianus probe noverat quam S. Stephanus asserebat consuetudinem, non peculiarem Romano Pontifici, sed universalem fuisse tunc temporis Ecclesiae consuetudinem,

According to the universal doctrine of the theologians and writers of France, St. Cyprian knew well that the custom which St. Stephen asserted was not peculiar to the Roman Pontiff, but was at that time the universal custom of the Church,

Editors' notes and page, col. 1373

Page

running head: 1373 PARS II. — RECENTIORU
marginal letters: A (in col. 1374); B (in col. 1374); C (in col. 1374); D (in col. 1374)
old-edition numerals: 1320 before Cyprianus
other: editors' matter: in suis... consuetudinem, (entire column)

PL 3:1374

ac ab omnibus episcopis antiquitus servatam fuisse.

and had of old been kept by all bishops.

Eminentissimus card. du Perron in sua Replicatione ad Magnae Britanniae regis responsionem, haec habet, pag. 839: « Objiciunt heterodoxi Cyprianum in causa baptismatis haereticorum opponentibus consuetudinem seu traditionem non aliquibus peculiarem, sed universalem Ecclesiae, respondisse Christum Dominum non dixisse: Ego sum consuetudo; sed ego sum veritas, sed addere etiam debebant Cyprianum tunc temporis contra veram Ecclesiae doctrinam disputasse. »

The most eminent Cardinal du Perron, in his Reply to the Answer of the King of Great Britain, page 839, has these words: "The heterodox object that Cyprian in the cause of the baptism of heretics answered those who opposed to him a custom or tradition not peculiar to some, but universal of the Church, that Christ the Lord did not say: I am custom; but I am the truth; yet they ought also to have added that Cyprian at that time disputed against the true doctrine of the Church."

Illustrissimus Languetius Senonensis archipraesul in documento pastorali contenant les remarques sur l'instruction de M. le card. de Noailles, edito an. 1719: « Cyprianus, inquit. pag. 95, et Africani praesules meritone summo Pontifici et orbi universo restiterunt? » Et pag. 96: « Felicior et sanctior Cyprianus fuisset, si resistentiae docilitatem praetulisset, si fateri voluisset Sedem Apostolicam cum majori episcoporum numero conjunctam victricem semper extitisse. »

The most illustrious Languet, archbishop of Sens, in his pastoral instruction contenant les remarques sur l'instruction de M. le card. de Noailles, published in the year 1719, page 95, says: "Did Cyprian and the African prelates deservedly withstand the Supreme Pontiff and the universal world?" And page 96: "Happier and holier would Cyprian have been, if he had preferred docility to resistance, if he had been willing to confess that the Apostolic See joined with the greater number of bishops has always been victorious."

Illustrissimus de Saleon, Ruthenensis episcopus in documento pastorali sur l'Autorité des décisions de l'Eglise, edito an. 1738, part. I pag. 235: « Culpa, inquit, S. Cypriani eo minus excusanda erat, quod non solum Stephani decreto, sed etiam universalis Ecclesiae consuetudini renitebatur; » et paulo post: « S. Cyprianum ipse Ecclesiae cousuetudinem suae opinioni contrariam esse fatetur, » quod deinde ex S. Augustino aliisque confirmat.

The most illustrious de Saléon, bishop of Rodez, in his pastoral instruction sur l'Autorité des décisions de l'Eglise, published in the year 1738, part I, page 235, says: "The fault of St. Cyprian was all the less to be excused, because he strove not only against the decree of Stephen, but also against the custom of the universal Church"; and a little after: "St. Cyprian himself confesses that the custom of the Church is contrary to his opinion," which he next confirms from St. Augustine and others.

Eminentissimus card. de Noailles, Parisiensis archiepiscopus in docum. pastorali dato die 14 Januarii 1719, palam agnoscit S. Cyprianum non modo Stephani, Romani Pontificis, sed et pluralitatis episcoporum auctoritati restitisse ac cedere noluisse: « Restitit quidem, inquit pag. 73, S. Cyprianus auctoritati Stephani Rom. Pontificis et pluralitatis episcoporum, cessisset tamen, juxta Augustinum plenarii concilii judicio. » Eminentissimo praesuli plane concinunt episcopi Apamiensis, Senensis, Monspessulanus, Bononiensis, Antissiodorensis et Maconensis in ipsorum responsione ad pastorale documentum emin. de Bissi, edita an. 1723, pag. 87, atque in aliis elucubrationibus quas vulgarunt.

The most eminent Cardinal de Noailles, archbishop of Paris, in his pastoral instruction dated the 14th day of January, 1719, openly recognizes that St. Cyprian withstood and was unwilling to yield to the authority not only of Stephen, the Roman Pontiff, but also of the plurality of bishops: "St. Cyprian indeed withstood," says he on page 73, "the authority of Stephen the Roman Pontiff and of the plurality of bishops, yet he would have yielded, according to Augustine, to the judgement of a plenary council." With the most eminent prelate altogether chime in the bishops of Pamiers, Senez, Montpellier, Boulogne, Auxerre, and Mâcon in their answer to the pastoral instruction of His Eminence de Bissy, published in the year 1723, page 87, and in other works which they published.

Isambertus, doctor et professor Sorbonicus, ad quaestionem 64, ubi de Sacramentis, disputat. 4, art. 1, pag. 121: « S. Cyprianus, inquit, tam in illa Epistola (ad Jubaianum) quam in concilio LXXVII episcoporum, ait rationem et veritatem esse praeponendam consuetudini; ergo supponit traditionem fuisse contrariam suae opinioni, (et paulo infra) non negat Cyprianus hanc (haereticos non rebaptizandi) esse communem traditionem Ecclesiae, ut Augustinus recte notat lib. III de Baptismo, cap. 12. »

Isambert, doctor and professor of the Sorbonne, at question 64, where he treats On the Sacraments, disputation 4, article 1, page 121, says: "St. Cyprian, both in that Letter (to Jubaianus) and in the council of seventy-seven [so printed, perhaps eighty-seven] bishops, says that reason and truth must be preferred to custom; therefore he supposes that tradition was contrary to his opinion; (and a little below) Cyprian does not deny that this (not rebaptizing heretics) is the common tradition of the Church, as Augustine rightly notes in book III On Baptism, chapter 12."

P. Frassen, doctor Sorbonicus in tractatu de Sacramentis, art. III, quaest. 3, pag. 95: « Tam

Father Frassen, doctor of the Sorbonne, in the treatise On the Sacraments, article III, question 3, page 95, says: "Both

Editors' notes and page, col. 1374

Page

running head: RECENTIORUM EXCURSUS. 1374
marginal letters: A ac ab omnibus; B an. 1719: « Cyprianus,; C confirmat.; D vulgarunt.
old-edition numerals: 1321 before in
other: editors' matter: ac ab... « Tam (entire column)
misprints kept as printed: cousuetudinem (for consuetudinem); inquit. (full stop for comma, before pag. 95)

PL 3:1375

Cyprianus ipse quam ejus collegae in concilio aperte agnoverunt consuetudinem et traditionem ecclesiasticam sibi adversari, si quidem pluries inculcant consuetudinem debere cedere veritati. »

Cyprian himself and his colleagues in the council openly recognized that ecclesiastical custom and tradition were opposed to them, seeing that they many times inculcate that custom ought to yield to truth."

Auctor Defensionis declarat. Cleri Gallic. an. 1682, sub nomine Bossuetii, Meldensis olim episcopi, extra Galliam vulgatae, part. III, lib. IV, cap. 7: « Neque vero, inquit, aliud Stephanus praedicabat et quidem urgebat, sed universalem consuetudinem, sed ab apostolis constantissimo tenore ad nos usque deductam, quam liber anonymus apud Rigaltium Stephani tempore adversus Cyprianum Cyprianique asseclas conscriptus appellat vetustissimam consuetudinem Ecclesiae... quin, ipsa flagrante discordia, Cyprianus ejusque collegae Africani consuetudinem sibi adversari ultro fatebantur: id saepe Augustinus notat. »

The author of the Defence of the Declaration of the Gallican Clergy of the year 1682, published outside France under the name of Bossuet, formerly bishop of Meaux, part 3, book 4, chapter 7, says: "Nor indeed did Stephen preach and indeed urge anything else, save the universal custom, and that deduced by a most constant tenor from the apostles even unto us, which the anonymous book in Rigault written in the time of Stephen against Cyprian and the followers of Cyprian calls the most ancient custom of the Church... nay, while the discord itself was blazing, Cyprian and his African colleagues voluntarily confessed that custom was opposed to them: this Augustine often notes."

Fleuriacus, Histor. Eccl. tom. II, lib. VII, cap. 26: « Veterem Ecclesiae consuetudinem Cypriano opponebant episcopi non rebaptizantes, illam fatetur quidem S. Cyprianus: at rationi subjiciendam esse contendit. » Fleuriacum excribit D. Ceillier Benedictinus Histor. Sacror. Auctorum tom. III, pag. 131.

Fleury, Ecclesiastical History, volume 2, book 7, chapter 26, says: "The bishops who did not rebaptize opposed the ancient custom of the Church to Cyprian; St. Cyprian confesses it indeed, yet contends that it must be subjected to reason." Dom Ceillier, the Benedictine, copies Fleury in the History of Sacred Authors, volume 3, page 131.

Tillemontius, Histor. Eccl. tom. IV, art. 43, de Cypriano, pag. 139: « S. Cyprianus, inquit, satis aperte fatetur se antiquam non sequi Ecclesiae consuetudinem; » et pag. 144: « Plerique episcopi concilii Carthaginensis III (in causa nimirum baptismi haereticorum) ideo, juxta Augustinum, asserunt veritatem consuetudini esse praeponendam, quia tunc etiam temporibus eorum praxis consuetudini pluralitatis Ecclesiarum erat contraria. »

Tillemont, Ecclesiastical History, volume 4, article 43, on Cyprian, page 139, says: "St. Cyprian openly enough confesses that he does not follow the ancient custom of the Church"; and page 144: "Most of the bishops of the Third Council of Carthage (namely in the cause of the baptism of heretics) therefore, according to Augustine, assert that truth must be preferred to custom, because even at that time their practice was contrary to the custom of the plurality of the Churches."

Auctor operis Gallice inscripti Remarques sur la Bibliothèque des auteurs Ecclesiast. de M. Dupin, sic loquitur tom. I, pag. 275: « Observari potest quod in quaestione baptismatis haereticorum S. Cyprianus fatebatur traditionem non modo Ecclesiae Romanae, sed etiam Ecclesiarum Africanarum suae opinioni esse contrariam. »

The author of the work entitled in French Remarques sur la Bibliothèque des auteurs Ecclésiastiques de M. Dupin speaks thus in volume 1, page 275: "It can be observed that in the question of the baptism of heretics St. Cyprian confessed that the tradition not only of the Roman Church, but also of the African Churches was contrary to his opinion."

Natalis Alexander. Hist. Eccles., saec. III, dissert. 12, art. 1, pag. 686: « Justissima, inquit fuisset excommunicatio a Stephano papa in Cyprianum ipsique consentientes in dogmate de rebaptizandis haereticis episcopos. Quis enim juste excommunicari neget eos qui errorem tuentur ab Apostolica Sede, et aliis Ecclesiis damnatum, et in errore manent pertinaces? Cum itaque hic esset Cypriani status, non fuisset injuste in eos lata excommunicatio a Stephano. » Citata Natalis Alexandri verba refert probatque D. Chiconot in Dissertatione Gallica sur la célèbre dispute entre le pape S. Etienne et S. Cyprien, Parisiis edita an. 1725, pag. 198, qui et addit doceri communiter a theologis, S. Cyprianum suam opinionem adversus Stephani Romani Pontificis et aliarum Ecclesiarum judicium pertinaciter propugnasse.

Noël Alexandre, Ecclesiastical History, century 3, dissertation 12, article 1, page 686, says: "Most just would have been the excommunication by Pope Stephen against Cyprian and the bishops agreeing with him in the dogma concerning rebaptizing heretics. For who would deny that those are justly excommunicated who defend an error condemned by the Apostolic See and the other Churches, and remain obstinate in error? Since therefore this was the state of Cyprian, excommunication would not have been unjustly pronounced against them by Stephen." The cited words of Noël Alexandre are reported and approved by M. Chiconot in the French Dissertation sur la célèbre dispute entre le pape S. Etienne et S. Cyprien, published at Paris in the year 1725, page 198, who also adds that it is commonly taught by theologians that St. Cyprian obstinately maintained his opinion against the judgement of Stephen the Roman Pontiff and of the other Churches.

Duhamel, doctor Sorbonicus, in sua Theologia

Duhamel, doctor of the Sorbonne, in his Theology, says:

Editors' notes and page, col. 1375

Page

running head: 1375 DE HAERETICORUM BA
marginal letters: A (in col. 1376); B (in col. 1376); C (in col. 1376); D (in col. 1376)
old-edition numerals: 1322 before et
other: editors' matter: Cyprianus ipse... Theologia (entire column)

PL 3:1376

« Erravit, inquit, hac in re Cyprianus; sed non deseruit unitatem Ecclesiae, neque adeo in schisma aut haeresim incurrit, licet non acquieverit huic Ecclesiae traditioni. »

"Cyprian erred in this matter; yet he did not forsake the unity of the Church, nor therefore did he fall into schism or heresy, although he did not acquiesce in this tradition of the Church."

Juenin in suo Commentario de Sacramentis, quaest. 5, art. 3, § 6, pag. 100: « De antiqua, inquit, Ecclesiae traditione, haereticos non rebaptizandi (Cyprianus ipse conveniabat). » Et paulo post ex S. Augustino probat S. Cyprianum universalem hanc Ecclesiae consuetudinem ubique intuitum fuisse his verbis: « Sic de Cyrpiano loquitur Augustinus: ubique intuens universalem robustamque consuetudinem.., idem S. Doctor asserit Cyprianum egisse adversus totius orbis morem. »

Juénin, in his Commentary On the Sacraments, question 5, article 3, section 6, page 100, says: "Concerning the ancient tradition of the Church of not rebaptizing heretics (Cyprian himself agreed)." And a little after from St. Augustine he proves that St. Cyprian beheld everywhere this universal custom of the Church, in these words: "Thus speaks Augustine concerning Cyprian: beholding everywhere the universal and robust custom... the same holy Doctor asserts that Cyprian acted against the custom of the whole world."

Du Saussoi, in libello cui Gallice titulus la Verité rendue sensible, tom. II, pag. 59; « S. Cyprianus non putavit se teneri ad amplectendam Stephani papae sententiam, quamvis huic pontifici major sine dubio episcoporum numerus adhaereret. » Auctor libelli inscripti: Réponse au premier avertissement de Mgr. l'évêque de Soissons, editi an. 1722, haec habet, p. 212: « S. Cyprianus, Firmillianus aliique plures episcopi ipsis addicti numero longe inferiores erant caeteris, qui Stephano adhaerebant episcopis; attamen Cyprianus merito juxta S. Augustinnm his auctoritatibus, quamtumlibet magnae essent, cedere noluit. »

Du Saussoy, in the booklet entitled in French La Vérité rendue sensible, volume 2, page 59, says: "St. Cyprian did not think that he was bound to embrace the opinion of Pope Stephen, although the greater number of bishops without doubt adhered to this pontiff." The author of the booklet entitled Réponse au premier avertissement de Mgr. l'évêque de Soissons, published in the year 1722, page 212, has these words: "St. Cyprian, Firmilian, and several other bishops devoted to them were far inferior in number to the rest of the bishops who adhered to Stephen; nevertheless Cyprian deservedly, according to St. Augustine, was unwilling to yield to these authorities, however great they were."

P. Coustant Benedictinus in suo de Epistolis Rom. Pontificum opere, tom. I, pag. 253: « Ne igitur, inquit majores suos ac totam pene Ecclesiam damnare Cyprianus videretur episcoporum unicuique permisit sentire vel agere quid melius Judicaret. » Et paulo infra sic pergit: « Durum videbatur Cypriano communionem eis negare qui servarent quod in omnibus prope Ecclesiis videbat servari, quodque a majoribus suis ante Agrippinum observatum esse non ignorabat; cum Stephano enim conspirabant omnes Ecclesiae, praeter Africanas et paucas Orientis, provincias, Africa morem eumdem ad Aggripinum usque obtinuisse Cyprianus et socii fatebantur.

Father Coustant, the Benedictine, in his work On the Epistles of the Roman Pontiffs, volume 1, page 253, says: "Lest therefore Cyprian should seem to condemn his ancestors and almost the whole Church, he permitted each one of the bishops to think or do what he judged better." And a little below he continues thus: "It seemed hard to Cyprian to deny communion to those who kept what he saw kept in almost all the Churches, and what he was not ignorant had been observed by his ancestors before Agrippinus; for with Stephen conspired all the Churches, except the African and a few provinces of the East, and that the same custom had obtained in Africa even unto Agrippinus, Cyprian and his companions confessed."

Turnelius doctor ac professor Sorbonicus, in tract de Sacramentis, quaest. 7, art. 2, conclu. 1, pag. 577. « Ex constanti, inquit, porro Ecclesiae traditione longe firmius deducitur argumentum (pro rejicienda nimirum haereticorum rebaptizatione) quod certe subodoratus Cyprianus, ac causae suae veluti diffidens si ad traditionem provocaret, non consuetudine seu traditione pugnandum hic esse contendebat, sed ratione. »

Tournely, doctor and professor of the Sorbonne, in the treatise On the Sacraments, question 7, article 2, conclusion 1, page 577, says: "Furthermore, from the constant tradition of the Church a far firmer argument is deduced (namely for rejecting the rebaptism of heretics), which Cyprian certainly scenting out, and as it were distrusting his own cause if he appealed to tradition, contended that one must fight here not by custom or tradition, but by reason."

D. Maran, jam supra laudatus, in Praefatione quam Baluzianae operum S. Cypriani editioni praemisit: « Cyprianus (inquit, pag. 17) humanam appellat traditionem, quod nullius concilii auctoritate constitutum in maximis quibusque Ecclesiis summo consensu observabatur.

Dom Maran, already praised above, in the Preface which he prefixed to the Baluzian edition of the works of St. Cyprian, page 17, says: "Cyprian calls a human tradition that which, established by the authority of no council, was observed with the highest consent in all the greatest Churches."

Brillon, doctor et professor Sorbonicus in suis theologis de Sacramentis praelectionibus in Sorbona hahitis, an. 1750: « Tum Cyprianus, » inquit,

Brillon, doctor and professor of the Sorbonne, in his theological prelections On the Sacraments delivered in the Sorbonne in the year 1750, says: "Both Cyprian,

Editors' notes and page, col. 1376

Page

running head: TICORUM BAPTISMATE. 1376
marginal letters: A « Erravit, inquit, hac; B rendue sensible, tom. II,; C unicuique permisit sentire; D tione) quod certe
old-edition numerals: 1323 before Cyprianus
other: missing closing guillemets after fatebantur. and observabatur.; editors' matter: « Erravit, inquit... inquit, (entire column)

PL 3:1377

quaest. 3, « tum Africani praesules agnoverunt in Africanis conciliis consuetudinem et traditionem apostolicam sibi adversari, identidem in his conciliis inculcant consuetudinem debere cedere veritati. »

question 3, "and the African prelates acknowledged in the African councils that the custom and apostolic tradition was against them; again and again in these councils they insist that custom must yield to truth."

Vogan, doctor et professor Sorbonicus, in suis theologicis de Sacramentis praelectionibus in Sorbona habitis, an 1757: « S. Augustinus, inquit, cap. 8, art. 1, qui variis in locis hanc consuetudinem appellat universalem, robustam, saluberrimam, quam quidem S. Cyprianus eodem teste ubique intuebatur, et egit tamen adversus totius orbis morem. »

Vogan, doctor and professor of the Sorbonne, in his theological lectures on the Sacraments given at the Sorbonne in the year 1757: "St Augustine," he says, chapter 8, article 1, "who in various places calls this custom universal, robust, most wholesome, which indeed St Cyprian, by the same witness, beheld everywhere, and yet he acted against the usage of the whole world."

Delahaye, doctor et professor Sorbonicus, in suis theologicis de Baptismo praelectionibus in Sorbona habitis, an. 1738: « Justa, inquit, cap. 5, art. 2, omnino fuisset excommunicatio S. Stephani, si lata fuisset in rebaptizantes, ea enim excommunicatio fuisset justissima, quae in eos cecidisset qui errorem ab Apostolica Sede et caeteris Eccclesiis proscriptum tuerentur, et in quo pertinaces forent. Porro talis erat error S. Cypriani et S. Firmiliani, ergo juste excommunicati fuissent;» et art. 3: « Ex his quae huc usque retulimus constat majorem episcoporum partem adhaesisse S. Stephano, unde sequitur ipsius sententiam fuisse Ecclesiae sententiam.... fatendum est infallibilitatem activam residere in majori parte episcoporum, ideoque S. Stephanum independenter a subsequenti Ecclesiae judicio, quae rem ex fide explicita credendam declaravit, tenuisse veritatem, siquidem non una tantum fuit Stephani sententia, sed etiam majoris partis episcoporum, unde S. Cyprianus vim argumenti ex Ecclesiae consuetudine et majori episcoporum numero conatur elidere, opponendo veritatem, quam falso praetendebat. »

Delahaye, doctor and professor of the Sorbonne, in his theological lectures on Baptism given at the Sorbonne in the year 1738: "The excommunication of St Stephen," he says, chapter 5, article 2, "would have been altogether just, had it been passed against the rebaptizers; for that excommunication would have been most just which fell upon those who defended an error proscribed by the Apostolic See and the other Churches, and in which they were obstinate. Now such was the error of St Cyprian and St Firmilian; therefore they would have been justly excommunicated"; and article 3: "From what we have related up to this point it is clear that the greater part of the bishops adhered to St Stephen, whence it follows that his opinion was the opinion of the Church.... It must be admitted that active infallibility resides in the greater part of the bishops, and therefore that St Stephen, independently of the subsequent judgement of the Church, which declared the matter to be believed by explicit faith, held the truth, since the opinion was not Stephen's alone but also that of the greater part of the bishops; whence St Cyprian tries to break the force of the argument from the custom of the Church and the greater number of bishops by opposing to it the truth, which he falsely pretended."

Quod autem Cyprianus juxta communem etiam theologorum modo laudatorum doctrinam noverit, Stephani consuetudinem ab omnibus episcopis antiquitus servatam fuisse sic demonstramus. Qui Agrippinum existimat primum rebaptizationis parentem, necessario agnoscit neminem episcoporum ante Agrippinum haereticos rebaptizasse, et consequenter Stephani Romani Pontificis consuetudinem ante Agrippinum ab omnibus episcopis observatam fuisse; atqui juxta communem Galliae scriptorum ac theologorum opinionem, S. Cyprianus Agrippinum censebat primum rebaptizationis parentem; id enim affirmant Isambertus, Frassen, defensor Declar. Cleri Gallicani, vulgo Bossuetius, Meldensis episcopus; Tillemontius, Fleuriacus, Baillet, auctor operis cui titulus: Remarques sur la Biblioth. des Auteurs Eccl., de M. Dupin, l'Herminier, Habert, P. Maran Benedictinus, P. Gervasius, D. Brillon et D. Beuret, professores Sorbonici, quorum omnium verba supra retulimus.

That Cyprian, according to the common doctrine also of the theologians just praised, knew that Stephen's custom had been kept from of old by all the bishops, we demonstrate thus. Whoever thinks Agrippinus the first parent of rebaptism necessarily acknowledges that none of the bishops before Agrippinus rebaptized heretics, and consequently that the custom of Stephen, the Roman Pontiff, was observed before Agrippinus by all the bishops; but according to the common opinion of the writers and theologians of France, St Cyprian held Agrippinus to be the first parent of rebaptism; for this is affirmed by Isambert, Frassen, the defender of the Declaration of the Gallican Clergy, commonly Bossuet, bishop of Meaux; Tillemont, Fleury, Baillet, the author of the work entitled Remarques sur la Biblioth. des Auteurs Eccl., de M. Dupin, l'Herminier, Habert, Father Maran the Benedictine, Father Gervais, Dom Brillon and Dom Beuret, professors of the Sorbonne, the words of all of whom we have related above.

Hoc insuper docent Juenin, Natalis Alexander, nec non de Reveroni in sua disertatione dogmatica de dissidio inter S. Stephan. et S. Cyprianum, et caeteri fere omnes qui de rebaptizationis origine tractarunt. Jure ergo concludinus Cyprianum juxta communem Gallorum doctrinam etiam novisse Stephani consuetudinem ab omnibus episcopis antiquitus servatam fuisse.

This is taught besides by Juenin, Natalis Alexander, and also de Reveroni in his dogmatic dissertation on the dissension between St Stephen and St Cyprian, and almost all the others who have treated of the origin of rebaptism. Rightly, therefore, we conclude that Cyprian, according to the common doctrine of the French, also knew that Stephen's custom had been kept from of old by all the bishops.

DISSERTATIONIS PARS SECUNDA.

SECOND PART OF THE DISSERTATION.

Editors' notes and page, col. 1377

Page

running head: 1377 PARS II. — RECENTIORU
marginal letters: A (in col. 1378); B (in col. 1378); C (in col. 1378); D (in col. 1378)
old-edition numerals: 1324 before Apostolica; 1325 before pontifex
other: one full-width line across cols. 1377-1378 not set: DISSERTATIONIS PARS SECUNDA.; editors' matter: quaest. 3,... pertinere (entire column)
other: a full-width band stands across cols 1377/1378 in mid-page: the 3 paragraph(s) above it in col 1378 are set here, after the 3 above it in col 1377 (reading order, moved on receipt); the band itself (its title lines) is not set by the volunteer page: set it here, at the move, with full_width
running head: 1377 PARS II. — RECENTIORUM EXCURSUS. 1378
marginal letters: A ‹quaest. 3, « tum Africani praesules agnoverunt in› / ‹majoris partis episcoporum, unde S. Cyprianus›; B ‹Sorbona habitis, an. 1738: « Justa, inquit, cap. 5,› / ‹num censebat primum rebaptizationis parentem›; C ‹non una tantum fuit Stephani sententia, sed etiam› / ‹tiquitus servatam fuisse.›; D ‹S. Cyprianum exortam de haereticorum baptismo› / ‹jam anni sint et longa aetas›
old-edition numerals: 1324 after ‹ab› (errorem ab)
other: page in reading order: upper halves of both columns (left 'quaest. 3' to 'sed etiam', right 'majoris partis' to 'servatam fuisse.'), then the full-width DISSERTATIONIS PARS SECUNDA; the ARGUMENTUM and lower halves are in c1378. 'an 1757' without point as printed. 'Remarques': the e is blurred in the type; read as Remarques.
misprints kept as printed (Q2b): 'Eccclesiis' (for Ecclesiis, left col.); 'disertatione' (for dissertatione, right col.); 'concludinus' (for concludimus, right col.)

PL 3:1378

ARGUMENTUM. — Solida et invicta sunt quae ad profligandum ac evertendum ex S. Cypriano petitum adversus pontificiam inerrantiam Neotericorum argumentum, a sapientissimis Galliae theologis adducuntur.

ARGUMENT. — Solid and unanswerable are the reasons which the wisest theologians of France bring forward to rout and overturn the argument of the moderns drawn from St Cyprian against pontifical inerrancy.

Vidimus quo pacto sapientissimi Galliae theologi istud Neotericorum argumentum vacuum et inane conficiant ac penitus evertant, propugnando nimirum, sicuti caeteri pontificiae inerrantiae vindices, S. Cyprianum exortam de haereticorum baptismo contentionem non fidei sed merae disciplinae retulisse, atque ipsum probe novisse quam Stephanus Romanus pontifex asserebat consuetudinem universalis Ecclesiae tunc temporis fuisse consuetudinem, ac ab omnibus episcopis antiquitus servatam fuisse. Restat ut haec duo Gallorum doctrinae capita solidis et invictis niti momentis ostendamus. Id totidem capitibus assequentur.

We have seen how the wisest theologians of France show this argument of the moderns to be empty and vain and utterly overturn it, maintaining namely, like the other defenders of pontifical inerrancy, that St Cyprian referred the contention that had arisen about the baptism of heretics to discipline alone and not to faith, and that he knew well that the custom which Stephen, the Roman pontiff, was asserting had been at that time the custom of the universal Church and had been kept from of old by all the bishops. It remains for us to show that these two heads of the doctrine of the French rest on solid and unanswerable grounds. This they will achieve in as many chapters.

CAPUT PRIMUN.

CHAPTER I.

Exponuntur momenta quibus evincitur causam de baptismate haereticorum Cypriano visam fuisse rem non fidei, sed merae disciplinae.

The grounds are set out by which it is proved that the case of the baptism of heretics seemed to Cyprian a matter not of faith but of mere discipline.

I. Illam opinionem seu praxim ad fidem pertinere nullatenus judicavit Cyprianus, cujus originem non a Christo vel ab apostolis, sed ab Agrippino, praedecessore suo, repetit; atqui Cyprianus suae opinionis originem ab Agrippino repetit, non vero a Christo, vel ab apostolis: « Apud nos, inquit S. Doctor in Epist. ad Jubaian. 75, non nova aut repentina res est, ut baptizandos censeamus eos qui ad haereticis ad Ecclesiam veniunt; quando multi jam anni sint et longa aetas, ex quo sub Agrippino bonae memoriae viro convenientes in unum episcopi plurimi hoc statuerint, atque exinde in hodiernum tot millia haereticorum in provinciis nostris ad Ecclesiam conversi non aspernati sint neque cunctati, imo et rationabiliter et libenter amplexi sint, ut lavacri vitalis ac salutaris baptismi gratiam consequerentur. » Vides hic Cyprianum suae opinionis antiquitatem ostentantem, qui tamen altius eam non repetit, quam ab Agrippini temporibus: siluissetne Agrippino antiquiorem sit aliquem sibi faventem agnovisset? Plures enumerat haereticos jam diu in provinciis Africanis rebaptizatos; at non ante, sed post Agrippinum: « atque exinde,

I. Cyprian in no way judged that opinion or practice to belong to the faith whose origin he traces back not to Christ or to the apostles, but to Agrippinus, his predecessor; but Cyprian traces the origin of his opinion back to Agrippinus, and not to Christ or to the apostles: "With us," says the holy Doctor in the Letter to Jubaianus, 75, "it is no new or sudden thing that we judge those to be baptized who come from the heretics to the Church, since it is now many years and a long age since, under Agrippinus, a man of good memory, very many bishops meeting together decided this, and from then until today so many thousands of heretics in our provinces, converted to the Church, have not scorned or hesitated, but have rather embraced it reasonably and gladly, that they might obtain the grace of the life-giving laver and of saving baptism." You see here Cyprian displaying the antiquity of his opinion, yet he traces it back no further than the times of Agrippinus: would he have kept silent if he had known of anyone older than Agrippinus who favoured him? He reckons many heretics rebaptized long since in the African provinces; but not before Agrippinus, rather after him: "and from then,

Editors' notes and page, col. 1378

Page

running head: RECENTIORUM EXCURSUS. 1378
marginal letters: A majoris partis episcoporum,; B id enim affirmant; C tiquitus servatam fuisse.; D jam anni sint
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: one full-width line across cols. 1377-1378 not set: DISSERTATIONIS PARS SECUNDA.; editors' matter: majoris partis... exinde, (entire column)
other: the 3 paragraph(s) of this column above the full-width band are set under col 1377 (reading order, moved on receipt)
running head: 1377 PARS II. — RECENTIORUM EXCURSUS. 1378
marginal letters: D ‹S. Cyprianum exortam de haereticorum baptismo› / ‹jam anni sint et longa aetas, ex quo sub Agrippino›
old-edition numerals: 1325 after ‹Romanus› (Stephanus Romanus)
other: this file holds the lower halves of page 740 below the full-width DISSERTATIONIS PARS SECUNDA (set in c1377): left col. ARGUMENTUM … 'pertinere', right col. 'nullatenus judicavit' … 'atque exinde,'. 'assequentur' (they will achieve) stands as printed; possibly meant assequemur (we shall achieve): UNSURE, not listed as a misprint.

PL 3:1379

inquit, in hodiernum tot millia haereticorum, etc. » Agrippino ergo vetustiorem non agnoscebat S. Doctor rebaptizatizationis auctorem.

says he, "unto this day so many thousands of heretics," etc. The holy Doctor therefore recognized no author of rebaptism more ancient than Agrippinus.

Audire juvat Augustinum, qui iterum atque iterum affirmat Cyprianum rebaptizationis initium ab Agrippino duxisse: « Ideo autem, » inquit, lib. III, de Bapt. contr. Donat. cap. 12, « non se rem novam aut repentinam facere beatus Cyprianus ostendit, quia sub Agrippino fieri jam coeperat. Anni sunt, » inquit, « multi, et longa aetas, ex quo sub Agrippino, bonae memoriae viro convenientes episcopi plurimi hoc statuerunt, proinde ab ipso Agrippiano res nova facta est. » Et lib. II, cap. 7: « Hanc ergo (Ecclesiae) saluberrimam consuetudinem per Agrippinum praedecessorem suum dicit sanctus Cyprianus coepisse corrigi, sed sicut diligentius inquisita veritas creditur per Agrippinum corrumpi coepisse, non corrigi. » Teste igitur Augustino S. Cyprianus inde probat se in rebaptizandis haereticis rem novam non facere, quia jam sub Agrippino id fieri « coeperat: » rebaptizationem ergo sub Agrippino coepisse putabat antistes Carthaginensis. Praeterea vides Augustinum ex Cypriani verbis colligere « rem novam ab Agrippino factam fuisse. » Tandem juxta expressissimam Augustini sententiam, S. Cyprianus dicit saluberrimam consuetudinem haereticos non rebaptizandi per Agrippinum praedecessorem suum coepisse corrigi; Agrippinus ergo juxta Cyprianum rebaptizationi dederat exordium.

It is pleasing to hear Augustine, who again and again affirms that Cyprian traced the beginning of rebaptism from Agrippinus: "Now on this account," says he, book 3 On Baptism against the Donatists, chapter 12, "blessed Cyprian shows that he is not doing a new or sudden thing, because under Agrippinus it had already begun to be done. 'It is many years,' says he, 'and a long age, since under Agrippinus, a man of good memory, very many bishops assembling determined this'; accordingly by Agrippinus himself a new thing was done." And book 2, chapter 7: "This most wholesome custom (of the Church), therefore, St. Cyprian says began to be corrected through Agrippinus his predecessor, whereas, even as the truth more diligently inquired into is believed, through Agrippinus it began to be corrupted, not corrected." With Augustine as witness, therefore, St. Cyprian proves from this that in rebaptizing heretics he is not doing a new thing, because already under Agrippinus this "had begun" to be done: the prelate of Carthage therefore thought that rebaptism had begun under Agrippinus. Besides, you see that Augustine from the words of Cyprian gathers "that a new thing was done by Agrippinus." Finally, according to the most express opinion of Augustine, St. Cyprian says that the most wholesome custom of not rebaptizing heretics "began" to be corrected through Agrippinus his predecessor; Agrippinus therefore, according to Cyprian, had given a beginning to rebaptism.

Audiamus iterum Augustinum: « Quam tamen inquit, lib. II de Bapt. cap. 8, consuetudinem (non rebaptizandi) nisi prior ante Agrippinus, et nonnulli per Africam coepiscopi ejus etiam per concilii sententias deserere tentavissent, non auderet Cyprianus saltem ratiocinari adversus eam. » Et lib. IV, cap. 9: « Istam consuetudinem tam robustam et antea idem Cyprianus invenit, ut cum ejus mutandae auctoritatem, quam sequeretur vir tanta scientia praeditus quaereret, non nisi in Africa sola factum paucis ante se annis Agrippini concilium reperiret. » Vides ex Augustino Cyprianum sola Agrippini, et nonnullorum episcoporum cum ipso sentientium auctoritate motum fuisse ad Ecclesiae consuetudinem mutandam, solam Agrippini concilii in totis retroactis temporibus auctoritatem sibi faventem reperiisse, et consequenter ea antiquiorem non invenisse nec agnovisse.

Let us hear Augustine again: "Which custom (of not rebaptizing), nevertheless," says he, book 2 On Baptism, chapter 8, "unless previously before him Agrippinus and some of his fellow-bishops throughout Africa had attempted even by the votes of a council to forsake, Cyprian would not dare at least to reason against it." And book 4, chapter 9 (or 6): "That custom the same Cyprian found so robust previously also, that when the man endowed with so great knowledge sought an authority for changing it which he might follow, he found only the council of Agrippinus held in Africa alone a few years before himself." You see from Augustine that Cyprian was moved by the authority alone of Agrippinus and of some bishops thinking with him to change the custom of the Church, that in all past times he found the authority of the council of Agrippinus alone favouring him, and consequently neither found nor recognized any more ancient than it.

Rursus Augustinus, lib. II de Bapt., cap. 8: « Sed cum, » inquit, « fatigatum (Cyprianum) praecedentis concilii, quod per Agrippinum factum est, excepisset auctoritas, maluit praedecessorum suorum tanquam inventum defendere, quam inquirendo amplius laborare; nam in fine epistolae ad Quintum ista ostendit in quo tanquam lectulo auctoritatis quasi fessus acquieverit, quod quidem inquit et Agrippinus, bonae memoriae vir, statuit, etc. » Cyprianus, ut ex Augustino percipis, voluit opinionem suam defendere, non tanquam aliquid a

Again Augustine, book 2 On Baptism, chapter 8: "Yet when," says he, "the authority of the preceding council, which was held through Agrippinus, had received him (Cyprian) wearied out, he preferred to defend it as an invention of his predecessors rather than to labour further in inquiring; for at the end of the letter to Quintus he shows these things, wherein as upon a couch of authority he rested as though weary: 'which indeed,' says he, 'Agrippinus also, a man of good memory, determined,' etc." Cyprian, as you perceive from Augustine, wished to defend his opinion not as something handed down by

Editors' notes and page, col. 1379

Page

running head: 1379 DE HAERETICORUM BA
marginal letters: A (in col. 1380); B (in col. 1380); C (in col. 1380); D (in col. 1380)
old-edition numerals: 1326 after Agrippinum
other: editors' matter: inquit, in... a (entire column)

PL 3:1380

Christo, vel ab apostolis traditum, sed tanquam a praedecessoribus suis » (ab Agrippiano scilicet et episcopis ipsius concilio subscribentibus) inventum; in hujus Agrippini, non vero Christi, vel apostolorum auctoritate veluti « fessus acquievit. »

Christ or by the apostles, but as "an invention of his predecessors" (namely of Agrippinus and the bishops subscribing to his council); in the authority of this Agrippinus, and not of Christ or of the apostles, he as it were "rested when weary."

Et vero quonam pacto Cyprianus rebaptizationis originem altius ab Agrippino repetere potuisset; Cyprianus inquam, qui, ut infra demonstrabimus, bene noverat antiquam universae Ecclesiae consuetudinem sibi adversari?

And in truth in what way could Cyprian have traced the origin of rebaptism higher than Agrippinus—Cyprian, I say, who, as we shall demonstrate below, knew well that the ancient custom of the universal Church was opposed to him?

II. Non propugnatur ut fidei dogma, quod tantum vindicatur ut « fidei congruum et magis pertinens ad sacerdotalem auctoritatem et Ecclesiae catholicae unitatem: « quod enim asseritur fidei congruum, supponitur de fide non esse; quod dicitur ad fidem magis accedere, magis pertinere, fidei veritas non creditur; sic e. g. qui sententiam de Verbi divinitate fidei congruentem, ad fidem magis accedentem assereret, omnium judicio de Verbi divinitate minus catholice sentiret. Cur tandem? Quia verbi divinitatem ad fidei nostrae dogmata revocare minime censeretur; ecclesiastica vero merae disciplinae statuta merito vocantur fidei congruentia, sacerdotalem firmant auctoritatem, atque Ecclesiae catholicae roborant unitatem. Porro S. Cyprianus suam de haereticis rebaptizandis opinionem « fidei » quidem « congruentem » appellavit, non vero fidei veritatem. « Magis pertinentem asseruit ad sacerdotalem auctoritatem et Ecclesiae catholicae unitatem; » non vero necessariam: « quorum, » inquit in Epist. ad Quintum 71 (id est Agrippini et aliorum, qui cum ipso rebaptizationem statuerunt), « sententiam et religiosam et legitimam et salutarem, fidei et Ecclesiae catholicae congruentem nos etiam secuti sumus. » Et in Epist. ad Stephanum 72: « De eo, inquit, vel maxime tibi scribendum, et cum tua gravitate ac sapientia conferendum fuit, quod magis pertineat, et ad sacerdotalem auctoritatem, et ad Ecclesiae catholicae unitatem, pariter, ac dignitatem de divinae dispositionis ordinatione venientem, eos qui sint foris extra Ecclesiam tincti, et apud haereticos, et schismaticos profanae aquae labe maculati, quando ad nos atque ad Ecclesiam, quae una est, venerint baptizari oportere. « Aliter loquentem audires S. Doctorem in iis quae tanquam fidei dogmata vindicabat. Non fidei congruentem, sed « fide credendam » dicebat sententiam de unitate Ecclesiae servanda: Hanc Ecclesiae unitatem, » inquit in tract. de Eccl. unitate, « qui non tenet, tenere se fidem credit?... hanc unitatem qui non tenet, non tenet Patris et Filii fidem. » Non fidei congruentem, sed fide tenendam dicebat sententiam qua infantes etiam baptizari posse decebatur: « Esse, inquit in Epist. ad Fidum, 64, « apud omnes, sive infantes, sive majores natu unam, divini muneris (baptismi) aequalitatem declarat nobis divinae Scripturae fides. » Verum urgetne aliqua merae disciplinae capita? Haec fidei congruentia appellare solet; nec fidei

II. That is not maintained as a dogma of faith which is vindicated only as "congruent with faith, and pertaining more to priestly authority and the unity of the Catholic Church": for what is asserted to be congruent with faith is supposed not to be of faith; what is said to approach nearer to faith, to pertain more to it, is not believed to be a truth of faith; thus, for example, he who should assert the opinion concerning the divinity of the Word to be congruent with faith, and approaching nearer to faith, in the judgement of all would think less Catholically concerning the divinity of the Word. Why, pray? Because he would by no means be judged to refer the divinity of the Word to the dogmas of our faith; whereas ecclesiastical statutes of mere discipline are deservedly called congruent with faith, confirm priestly authority, and strengthen the unity of the Catholic Church. Now St. Cyprian called his opinion concerning rebaptizing heretics "congruent with faith" indeed, yet not a truth of faith. He asserted it to be "pertaining more to priestly authority and the unity of the Catholic Church," yet not necessary: "whose opinion," says he in Letter 71, To Quintus (that is, of Agrippinus and the others who with him determined rebaptism), "as religious and legitimate and wholesome, congruent with faith and the Catholic Church, we also have followed." And in Letter 72, To Stephen: "Concerning this matter," says he, "we had most of all to write to you, and confer with your gravity and wisdom, over that which pertains more both to priestly authority and to the unity of the Catholic Church, as well as to the dignity coming from the ordinance of the divine disposition, that those who have been dipped outside the Church, and among heretics and schismatics stained with the defilement of profane water, when they come to us and to the Church, which is one, ought to be baptized." Otherwise would you hear the holy Doctor speaking in those things which he vindicated as dogmas of faith. Not congruent with faith, but "to be believed by faith" did he call the opinion concerning keeping the unity of the Church: "This unity of the Church," says he in the treatise On the Unity of the Church, "he who does not hold, does he believe that he holds the faith?... This unity he who does not hold, holds not the faith of the Father and the Son." Not congruent with faith, but to be held by faith did he call the opinion whereby it was taught that infants also can be baptized: "That there is," says he in Letter 64, To Fidus, "among all, whether infants or elders by birth, one equality of the divine gift (baptism), the faith of divine Scripture declares to us." Yet does he urge any heads of mere discipline? These he is wont to call congruent with faith; thus congruent with faith

Editors' notes and page, col. 1380

Page

running head: ETICORUM BAPTISMATE. 1380
marginal letters: A Christo, vel ab; B ad fidem magis; C (id est Agrippini; D dicabat. Non fidei
old-edition numerals: 1327 before « quorum, »
other: missing opening guillemet before Hanc Ecclesiae; editors' matter: Christo, vel... fidei (entire column)

PL 3:1381

congruentes appellat litteras confessorum, in quibus lapsorum poenitentium nomina secundum ecclesiasticam consuetudinem designabantur: « Et ideo, » inquit in epist. 15, ad Martyres et Confessores, « peto ut eos (lapsos) quos ipsi videtis, quos nostis, quorum poenitentiam satisfactioni proximam conspicitis, designetis nominatim libello, et sic ad nos fidei congruentes litteras dirigatis. » Sic fidei congruentem vocat suam erga lapsos agendi rationem, scilicet quod lapsis pacem dederit imminente persecutione: « Nos, » inquit in epist. 57, ad Cornelium S. Pontificem, « quod fidei et charitati et sollicitudini congruebat, quae erant in conscientia nostra protulimus. » Ex quibus apertissime constat non modo in sensu obvio et naturali, sed etiam in phrasi Cyprianica ad capita disciplinae, non autem ad fidei dogmata revocari, quae tantum dicuntur fidei congruentia, et ad eam magis pertinentia.

he calls the letters of the confessors, wherein the names of the penitent lapsed were designated according to ecclesiastical custom: "And therefore," says he in Letter 15, To the Martyrs and Confessors, "I ask that those (the lapsed) whom you yourselves see, whom you know, whose penance you behold very near to satisfaction, you designate by name in a certificate, and thus direct letters congruent with faith to us." Thus congruent with faith he calls his own manner of acting towards the lapsed, namely that he granted peace to the lapsed when persecution was imminent: "We," says he in Letter 57, To Pope Cornelius, "brought forward the things which were in our conscience, which was congruent with faith and charity and solicitude." From which it is most openly established that not only in the obvious and natural sense, but also in Cyprianic phrase, those things are referred to heads of discipline, and not to dogmas of faith, which are only said to be congruent with faith and pertaining more to it.

III. Quod Deus alicui fidelium revelat, inspirat tanquam quid melius, quid utilius, tanquam efficacius ad haereticos excitandos ut ad Ecclesiae unitatem redeant, hoc meram sonat oeconomiam ac disciplinam, nullatenus vero fidei dogma. Porro S. Cyprianus suam de haereticis rebaptizandis opinionem et praxim antiquae Ecclesiae consuetudini praeponendam contendit tanquam aliquid a Deo quibusdam inspiratum ut melius et utilius, ut magis alliciens haereticos ad Ecclesiae unitatem amplectendam; en verba Cypriani in Epist. 71 ad Quintum: « Non est autem de consuetudine praescribendum, sed ratione vincendum; nam nec Petrus quem primum Dominus elegit et super quem aedificavit Ecclesiam suam, cum secus Paulus de circumcisione postmodum disputarent, vindicavit sibi aliquid insolenter aut arroganter assumpsit, ut diceret se primatum tenere et obtemperari a novellis et posteris sibi potius oportere, nec despexit Paulum quod Ecclesiae prius persecutor fuisset, sed consilium veritatis admisit, et rationi legitimae quam Paulus vindicabat facile consensit, documentum scilicet nobis et concordiae et patientiae tribuens, ut non pertinaciter nostra amemus, sed quae aliquando a fratribus et collegis nostris utiliter et salubriter suggeruntur et sint vera et legitima, ipsa potius nostra ducamus; cui rei Paulus quoque prospiciens in Epistola sua posuit dicens: « Prophetae autem duo aut tres loquantur et caeteri examinent; si autem alii revelatum fuerit sedenti, ille prior taceat: » qua in parte docuit et ostendit multa singulis in melius revelari, et debere unumquemque non pro eo quo semel imbiberat, et tenebat pertinaciter congredi, sed si quid melius et utilius exstiterit, libenter amplecti; non enim vincimur, quando offeruntur nobis meliora: » et in Epist. 75, ad Jubaian.: « Porro autem, inquit, cum haeretici cognoscunt baptisma nullum foris esse, nec remissam peccatorum extra Ecclesiam dari posse, avidius ad nos et promptius properant et

III. What God reveals and inspires to some one of the faithful as something better, something more useful, as more efficacious for stirring up heretics to return to the unity of the Church, this sounds of mere economy and discipline, and in no way of a dogma of faith. Now St. Cyprian contends that his opinion and practice concerning rebaptizing heretics must be preferred to the ancient custom of the Church as something inspired by God to some as better and more useful, as more alluring to heretics for embracing the unity of the Church; behold the words of Cyprian in Letter 71, To Quintus: "Now one must not prescribe from custom, but overcome by reason; for neither did Peter, whom the Lord chose first and upon whom He built His Church, when Paul afterwards disputed with him concerning circumcision, claim anything for himself insolently or arrogantly assume anything, so as to say that he held the primacy and that he ought rather to be obeyed by novices and those who came after, nor did he despise Paul because he had previously been a persecutor of the Church, but admitted the counsel of truth, and easily consented to the legitimate reason which Paul vindicated, giving us namely a lesson both of concord and of patience, that we should not obstinately love our own things, but count rather as our own the things which at times are usefully and wholesomely suggested by our brethren and colleagues, if they be true and legitimate; providing for which matter Paul also set down in his Epistle, saying: 'Now let two or three prophets speak, and let the rest examine; but if anything be revealed to another sitting by, let the first hold his peace' (1 Cor. 14:29–30): in which place he taught and showed that many things are revealed 'to individuals for the better,' and that each one ought not to contend obstinately for that which he had once imbibed and held, but if 'anything better and more useful' has appeared, gladly to embrace it; for we are not overcome when 'better things' are offered to us"; and in Letter 75 (or 73), To Jubaianus: "Moreover," says he, "when heretics learn that there is no baptism outside, and that the remission of sins cannot be given outside the Church, they hasten to us more eagerly and more promptly, and

Editors' notes and page, col. 1381

Page

running head: 1381 PARS II. — RECENTIORUM
marginal letters: A (in col. 1382); B (in col. 1382); C (in col. 1382); D (in col. 1382)
old-edition numerals: 1328 before Paulus
other: editors' matter: congruentes appellat... et (entire column)

PL 3:1382

munera ac dona Ecclesiae Matris implorant. » Quare ergo Cyprianus in causa baptismatis haereticorum consuetudine praescribendum non esse contendit? Quia, inquit « nemo pertinaciter congredi debet pro eo quod semel imbibebat, quando aliquid melius et utilius offertur. » Suam vero de rebaptizandis haereticis opinionem et praxim, tanquam quid melius et utilius esse recipiendam probat ex eo quod haeretici intelligentes baptisma foris (id est extra Ecclesiam) nullum esse, Promptius ac avidius ad Ecclesiae unitatem redibunt. An ergo fidem aliquatenus spectare censebat antistes Carthaginensis quod aliis offerebat, ut quid melius et utilius? Quod ab aliis antiqua consuetudine postposita suscipiendum esse contendebat, ut haeretici promptius ac avidius ad unitatem Ecclesiae redirent? Itane urgeri solent a sanctis Patribus fidei capita? Suscipiendane dicuntur ut quid melius et utilius? In rebus fidei nullane illius quod in Ecclesia antiquitus servabatur habenda ratio? Quam haec aliena in rebus fidei, tam in rebus disciplinae ecclesiasticae esse consueta, apposita, ac congruentia, ut tantum decet auctorem, nullo labore concipimus.

implore the gifts and presents of Mother Church." Wherefore then does Cyprian contend that in the cause of the baptism of heretics one must not prescribe by custom? Because, says he, "no one ought to contend obstinately for that which he once imbibed, when something better and more useful is offered." Now that his opinion and practice concerning rebaptizing heretics must be received as something better and more useful, he proves from the fact that heretics, understanding that baptism outside (that is, outside the Church) is null, will return more promptly and more eagerly to the unity of the Church. Did the prelate of Carthage therefore judge that what he offered to others as something better and more useful in any way regarded faith? What he contended ought to be received by others, setting aside the ancient custom, in order that heretics might return more promptly and more eagerly to the unity of the Church? Are heads of faith wont to be urged thus by the holy Fathers? Are they said to be received as something better and more useful? In matters of faith is no account to be taken of that which was kept of old in the Church? How alien these things are in matters of faith, and how customary, apposite, and congruent in matters of ecclesiastical discipline, as befits so great an author, we conceive with no labour.

IV. Ad disciplinae capita, non ad fidei dogmata revocantur, quae certis provinciis sunt propria, quae ab illis merito retineri posse creduntur quando semel apud ipsas usurpata fuere; fides enim non uni vel alteri propria est provinciae, sed eadem ubique et omnibus provinciis catholicis communis esse debet: « Regula fidei, inquit Tertul. lib. de Virgine. veland., omnino una est, sola immobilis et irreformabilis. » Aliunde quod in provinciis quibusdam usurpatur, sonat praxim ac disciplinam, non vero fidem, quae usurpari non dicitur; tandem in rebus fidei falsum est hoc principium, quod aliquid merito retineri possit eo ipso, quod semel usurpatum fuit, alioquin dicendum foret a quibusdam Germanis provinciis merito retineri Lutherana placita, quia semel apud eas usurpata fuerunt, quod tamen principium in rebus merae disciplinae jure merito saepius urgeri potest. Porro S. Cyrianus suam de rebaptizandis haereticis praxim inter ea recenset, quae certis quibusdam provinciis sunt propria, quaeve merito retineri possunt eo ipso quod apud eas semel fuerint usurpata, sic enim loquitur in epist. 72 ad Stephanum S. Pontificem: « Haec (gesta nempe in concilio Africano pro rebaptizandis haereticis) ad conscientiam tuam, frater charissime, et pro honore communi et pro simplici dilectione pertulimus, credentes etiam tibi pro religionis tuae et fidei veritate placare, quae religiosa pariter et vera sunt. Caeterum scimus quosdam quod semel imbiberint nolle deponere, nec propositum suum facile mutare, sed salvo inter collegas pacis et concordiae vincula quaedam propria quae apud se semel sint usurpata retinere, qua in re nec nos vim cuiquam facimus aut legem damus. » Nemo non videt Cyprianum hic Stephano significare se facile ob emperaturum

IV. To heads of discipline, not to dogmas of faith, are those things referred which are proper to certain provinces, which are believed capable of being deservedly retained by them when once they have been adopted among them; for faith is not proper to one or another province, but ought to be the same everywhere and common to all Catholic provinces: "The rule of faith," says Tertullian in the book On the Veiling of Virgins, "is altogether one, alone immovable and irreformable." Moreover, what is adopted in certain provinces sounds of practice and discipline, and not of faith, which is not said to be "adopted"; finally, in matters of faith this principle is false, that anything can deservedly be retained by the very fact that it has once been adopted, otherwise it would have to be said that the Lutheran opinions are deservedly retained by certain German provinces because they were once adopted among them—which principle nevertheless in matters of mere discipline can rightly and deservedly be urged quite often. Now St. Cyprian reckons his practice concerning rebaptizing heretics among those things which are proper to certain provinces, or which can deservedly be retained by the very fact that they have once been adopted among them; for thus he speaks in Letter 72, To Pope Stephen: "These things (namely the proceedings in the African council for rebaptizing heretics) we have brought to your knowledge, dearest brother, both for our common honour and for our simple love, believing that those things which are equally religious and true are pleasing to you also in accordance with the truth of your religion and faith. For the rest, we know that some are unwilling to lay aside what they have once imbibed, nor easily change their purpose, but saving the bond of peace and concord among colleagues, 'retain certain things of their own which have once been adopted among them,' in which matter neither do we do violence to anyone or give a law." Everyone sees that Cyprian here signifies to Stephen that he would not easily

Editors' notes and page, col. 1382

Page

running head: ECENTIORUM EXCURSUS. 1382
marginal letters: A munera ac dona; B Itane urgeri solent; C irreformabilis. » Aliunde; D tificem : « Haec
old-edition numerals: 1329 before dicendum
other: editors' matter: munera ac... ob em- (entire column); word split at end of column: ob em- (obtemperaturum)
other: the word emperaturum was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1383

PL 3:1383

non esse illius judicio improbanti Africanum de rebaptizandis haereticis statutum, non ea ratione, quod Rom. Pontificis judicia in rebus fidei infallibilia non existimaret, sed eo nixus principio, quod, etiam refragante Rom. Pontifice, merito in quibusdam provinciis retineri possunt, quae ipsis sunt propria et quae ab ipsis semel usurpata fuerunt, qualis erat praxis de rebaptizandis haereticis.

that he would not obey his judgement disapproving the African statute concerning rebaptizing heretics, not for that reason, that he did not think the judgements of the Roman Pontiff infallible in matters of faith, but relying upon that principle, that even when the Roman Pontiff gainsays, there can deservedly be retained in certain provinces the things which are proper to themselves and which have once been adopted by them, such as was the practice concerning rebaptizing heretics.

V. Cyprianus aperte declarat de una Stephanum inter et ipsum agi disciplina. Cum enim S. Stephanus pro sua opinione attulisset exemplum ipsorummet haereticorum, qui ad se venientes non baptizabant, respondet S. Cyprianus « ad illud malorum devolutam non esse Dei Ecclesiam ut ab haereticis mutuetur disciplinam ad celebranda Sacramenta. » Hoc ergo Stephani crimen, juxta Cyprianum, quod ab haereticis mutuaretur disciplinam ad celebranda sacramenta; disciplinam ergo vocat Cyprianus quod Stephanus propugnabat. De aliqua ergo disciplina, judice Cypriano, Stephanum inter et ipsum disputabatur; en verba Cypriani in epist. 74, ad Pompeium: « Praeclara sane et legitima traditio Stephano fratre nostro docente proponitur, quae auctoritatem nobis idoneam praebeat; nam in eodem loco epistolae suae addidit et adjecit, cum ipsi haeretici proprie alterutrum ad se venientes non baptizent, sed communicent tantum; ad hoc enim malorum devoluta est Ecclesia Dei et sponsa Christi ut haereticorum exempla sectetur, ut ad celebranda sacramenta coelestia disciplinam lux de tenebris mutuetur et id faciant Christiani quod antichristi faciunt. »

V. Cyprian openly declares that between Stephen and himself it is a question of discipline alone. For when St. Stephen for his opinion had brought forward the example of the very heretics themselves, who did not baptize those coming to them, St. Cyprian replies "that the Church of God has not fallen to that pitch of evils that she should borrow discipline from heretics for celebrating the Sacraments." This therefore was the crime of Stephen, according to Cyprian, that he borrowed discipline from heretics for celebrating the sacraments; Cyprian therefore calls discipline what Stephen maintained. Concerning some discipline therefore, with Cyprian as judge, was the dispute between Stephen and himself; behold the words of Cyprian in Letter 74, To Pompeius: "A noble and legitimate tradition, forsooth, is proposed by our brother Stephen teaching, which may afford us a suitable authority; for in the same place of his letter he added and subjoined, since the heretics themselves properly do not baptize those coming from one to another, but only communicate with them; for to this pitch of evils has the Church of God and spouse of Christ fallen, that she follows the examples of heretics, that for celebrating the heavenly sacraments light borrows discipline from darkness, and Christians do that which antichrists do."

VI. Si existimasset Cyprianus Stephani consuetudinem sine dispendio catholici dogmatis servari non posse, dicendum foret S. Cyprianum existimasse dogma catholicum tunc temporis a S. Stephano Romano pontifice et a longe majori episcoporum parte, antiquitus vero ab omnibus episcopis catholicis impetitum fuisse; noverat enim, ut infra probabimus, quam Stephanus vindicabat consuetudinem a longe majori episcoporum parte tunc temporis esse receptam, antiquitus vero ab omnibus episcopis servatam fuisse. Verum quis Catholicorum haec impingat tanto Doctori? Fatearis ergo necesse est hanc Cypriano visam fuisse merae disciplinae controversiam.

VI. If Cyprian had thought that the custom of Stephen could not be kept without loss of Catholic dogma, it would have to be said that St. Cyprian thought that Catholic dogma at that time was assailed by St. Stephen the Roman pontiff and by far the greater part of the bishops, and of old by all Catholic bishops; for he knew, as we shall prove below, that the custom which Stephen vindicated was at that time received by far the greater part of the bishops, and of old had been kept by all bishops. Yet what Catholic would fasten these things upon so great a Doctor? It is necessary therefore that you confess that this seemed to Cyprian a controversy of mere discipline.

VII. Si Cyprianus a Deo revelatum censuisset nullum esse baptisma ab haereticis collatum, desperasset profecto de illorum infantium salute, qui in praeteritum cum solo baptismo ab haereticis dato vita functi erant; non enim ignorabat validi baptismi necessitatem ad salutem consequendam; atqui tamen ipse fatetur desperandum non esse de eorum omnium salute, qui praeteritis temporibus cum solo baptismo ab haereticis dato obierant, dummodo in Ecclesiae sinu dormierint; auscultes ipsi Jubaianum alloquenti: « Quid ergo fiet, » inquit, « de iis qui in praeteritum de haeresi ad Ecclesiam venientes sine baptismo mortui admissi sunt? Potens

VII. If Cyprian had judged it revealed by God that baptism conferred by heretics is null, he would assuredly have despaired of the salvation of those infants who in the past had departed from life with only the baptism given by heretics; for he was not ignorant of the necessity of a valid baptism for obtaining salvation; and yet he himself confesses that one must not despair of the salvation of all those who in past times had died with only the baptism given by heretics, provided only they fell asleep in the bosom of the Church; listen to him addressing Jubaianus: "What then will become," says he, "of those who in the past coming from heresy to the Church were admitted without baptism and have died? The Lord is

Editors' notes and page, col. 1383

Page

running head: 1383 DE HAERETICORUM BA
marginal letters: A (in col. 1384); B (in col. 1384); C (in col. 1384); D (in col. 1384)
old-edition numerals: 1330 after probabimus,
other: editors' matter: peraturum non... Po- (entire column); words split at column breaks: peraturum (obtemperaturum), Po-
other: the word Potens was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1384

PL 3:1384

est Dominus misericordia sua indulgentiam dare et eos qui ad Ecclesiam simpliciter admissi in Ecclesia dormierunt ab Ecclesiae suae muneribus non separare. » Audi et Augustinum id saepius de Cypriano testantem: « Cum Cyprianus, » inquit, lib. II de Bapt., cap. 13, « arbitraretur eos qui extra Ecclesiae communionem baptizarentur baptismum non habere, credidit eos tamen in Ecclesiam simpliciter admissos propter ipsius unitatis vinculum posse ad veniam pertinere; » et cap. 14: « Si ergo Cyprianus, quos esse sine baptismo arbitrabatur, tamen propter unitatis vinculum ad veniam pertinere praesumebat; » et cap. 15: « Si enim non habebant baptismum qui ab haereticis veniebant, sicut asserit Cyprianus, non recte admittebantur, et tamen eisdem ipse indulgentiam de Domini misericordia propter unitatem Ecclesiae non desperavit. » Eadem scribit lib. V, cap. 2; lib. II contr. Crescon., cap. 33, et aliis in locis. Non est igitur desperandum, judice Cypriano, de illorum salute, qui cum solo baptismo ab haereticis collato obierunt, dummodo in Ecclesiae sinu dormierint, dummodo extra unitatem Ecclesiae non obierint. Propter enim hujus unitatis vinculum, teste Augustino, Cyprianus eos ad veniam pertinere praesumebat: non est ergo desperandum de salute infantium cum solo baptismo ab haereticis collato vita functorum; ii enim nulla haereseos labe nondum maculati in Ecclesiae sinu dormierunt, extra unitatem Ecclesiae non obierunt. At numquid hanc Dei indulgentiam infantibus sine ullo baptismo decedentibus tribuebat S. Doctor? Non ita sane. Quare ergo eam infantibus sine baptismo a catholicis dato defunctis impertitur? nisi quia traditam a Deo judicabat necessitatem baptismi alicujus ad salutem consequendam, non item baptismi a catholico collati, et consequenter si baptismum haereticorum rejiciendum esse contendebat, hoc, non quia a Deo revelotum crederet, sed ob alias rationes infra dicendas; non igitur fidei suam Cyprianus de rebaptizandis haereticis opinionem devovebat.

able by His mercy to grant indulgence and not to separate from the gifts of His Church those who, having been simply admitted to the Church, have fallen asleep in the Church." Hear Augustine also quite often testifying to this concerning Cyprian: "When Cyprian," says he, book II On Baptism, chapter 13, "supposed that those who were baptized outside the communion of the Church did not have baptism, he believed nevertheless that those simply admitted into the Church could attain to pardon on account of the bond of unity itself"; and chapter 14: "If therefore Cyprian presumed that those whom he supposed to be without baptism nevertheless attained to pardon on account of the bond of unity"; and chapter 15: "For if those who came from heretics did not have baptism, just as Cyprian asserts, they were not rightly admitted, and yet for those same men he himself did not despair of indulgence from the mercy of the Lord on account of the unity of the Church." He writes the same things in book V, chapter 2; book II Against Cresconius, chapter 33, and in other places. One must not therefore despair, with Cyprian as judge, of the salvation of those who have died with only the baptism conferred by heretics, provided only they fell asleep in the bosom of the Church, provided only they did not die outside the unity of the Church. For on account of the bond of this unity, as Augustine testifies, Cyprian presumed that they attained to pardon: one must not therefore despair of the salvation of infants who have departed from life with only the baptism conferred by heretics; for these, stained as yet by no spot of heresy, fell asleep in the bosom of the Church, and did not die outside the unity of the Church. Yet did the holy Doctor attribute this indulgence of God to infants departing without any baptism? Assuredly not so. Wherefore then does he impart it to infants deceased without baptism given by Catholics, save because he judged that the necessity of some baptism for obtaining salvation was handed down by God, yet not that of baptism conferred by a Catholic, and consequently if he contended that the baptism of heretics must be rejected, this was not because he believed it revealed by God, but on account of other reasons to be stated below; Cyprian therefore did not assign his opinion concerning rebaptizing heretics to faith.

VII. Constans est ac perpicua Cypriani doctrina cuilibet episcopo liberum esse in hac quaestione diversum sentire, et varias in parte sese inclinare: « Rescripsi, fili charissime, » inquit in epist 69, ad Magnum, « ad litteras tuas quantum parva nostra mediocritas valuit, et ostendit quid nos quantum in nobis est sentiamus (de haereticorum scilicet baptismo), nemini praescribentes quominus statuat quod putat unusquisque praepositus actus sui rationem Domino redditurus. » Et in epist. 72. ad Stephanum R. Pontificem: « Qua in re (in negotio baptismatis haereticorum) nec nos vim cuiquam facimus, aut legem damus, cum habeat in Ecclesiae administratione voluntatis suae arbitrium liberum unusquisque praepositus rationem actus sui Domino redditurus. » Et in epist. 75, ad Jubaian.: « Haec tibi breviter pro nostra mediocritate rescripsimus, frater charissime, nemini praescribentes

VII. Constant and clear is the doctrine of Cyprian that every bishop is free in this question to think differently, and to incline himself towards various sides: "I have written back, dearest son," says he in Letter 69, To Magnus, "to your letter so far as our small mediocrity was able, and have shown what we, so far as in us lies, think (namely concerning the baptism of heretics), prescribing to no one so as to prevent each prelate from determining what he thinks, being about to render an account of his own action to the Lord." And in Letter 72, To Stephen the Roman Pontiff: "In which matter (in the business of the baptism of heretics) neither do we do violence to anyone, or give a law, since each prelate has in the administration of the Church the free choice of his own will, being about to render an account of his own action to the Lord." And in Letter 75, To Jubaianus: "These things we have briefly written back to you according to our mediocrity, dearest brother, prescribing to no one

Editors' notes and page, col. 1384

Page

running head: TICORUM BAPTISMATE. 1384
marginal letters: A tens est Dominus; B Domini misericordia propter; C dentibus tribuebat S.; D parva nostra mediocritas
old-edition numerals: 1331 before cuilibet
other: editors' matter: tens est... prae- (entire column); words split at column breaks: tens (Potens), prae-
other: the word praescribentes was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1385
misprints kept as printed: revelotum (for revelatum); perpicua (for perspicua); ostendit (for ostendi); section numeral VII. printed a second time (the preceding section, col 1383, is also VII.)

PL 3:1385

aut praejudicantes, quominus unusquisque episcoporum quod putat faciat, habens arbitrii sui liberam potestatem, nos quantum in nobis est propter haereticos cum collegis et coepicopis nostris non contendimus, cum quibus divinam concordiam et dominicam pacem tenemus. » Et in exordio concilii Carthag. III, sic loquitur: « Superest ut de hac re singuli quid sentiamus proferamus neminem judicantes aut a jure communionis aliquem si diversum senserit amoventes; neque enim quisquam nostrum episcopum se episcoporum constituit, aut tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem collegas suos adigit, quandoquidem habeat omnis episcopus pro licentia libertatis et potestatis suae arbitrium proprium. »

or prejudging, so as to prevent each of the bishops from doing what he thinks, having the free power of his own choice; we, so far as in us lies, do not contend on account of heretics with our colleagues and fellow-bishops, with whom we hold divine concord and the peace of the Lord." And in the opening of the Third Council of Carthage he speaks thus: "It remains that concerning this matter we each bring forward what we think, judging no one, nor removing anyone from the right of communion if he thinks differently; for neither does anyone of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, or by tyrannical terror compel his colleagues to the necessity of obeying, seeing that every bishop has his own choice according to the license of his liberty and power."

Haec porro sentiendi libertas, quam Cyprianus cuilibet episcopo in causa baptismatis haereticorum concedebat, invicte demonstrat ipsum nullatenus fidei, sed uni, quae varia esse potest, hanc quaestionem retulisse disciplinae. Quis enim credat Cyprianum existimasse quod cuilibet episcopo liberum esset in rebus fidei sentire quid vellet? Censuisset igitur antistes Carthaginensis cuilibet episcopo liberum fuisse Verbi divinitatem, duas in Christo naturas, etc., quae tot fidei nostrae capita credebat admittere vel denegare? Inscite prorsus diceretur talem a Cypriano episcopis concessam fuisse libertatem in his, quae plenario nondum definita erant concilio; quis enim vel ex tirunculis nesciat nil Cypriani temporibus a plenariis adhuc definitum fuisse conciliis? Regeres fortasse unam tunc temporis de divinitate Verbi in Ecclesia fuisse sententiam, non item de baptismo haereticorum? Pluribus ergo Verbi divinitatem impetentibus existimasset Cyprianus cuilibet episcopo fuisse liberum de divinitate Verbi sentire quid vellet? Satis ergo erat Cypriano dogma aliquod a pluribus episcopis impugnari, ut liberum cuilibet episcopo jam foret illud credere, vel non credere? Talia de Cypriano somniantibus commiserandum potius quam respondendum.

Now this liberty of thinking which Cyprian granted to every bishop in the cause of the baptism of heretics invincibly demonstrates that he in no way referred this question to faith, but to discipline alone, which can be varied. For who would believe that Cyprian thought that every bishop was free in matters of faith to think what he wished? Would the prelate of Carthage therefore have judged that every bishop was free to admit or deny the divinity of the Word, the two natures in Christ, etc., which he believed to be so many heads of our faith? Unskilfully altogether would it be said that such liberty was granted by Cyprian to bishops in those things which had not yet been defined by a plenary council; for who even of beginners does not know that nothing in the times of Cyprian had as yet been defined by plenary councils? Would you reply perhaps that at that time there was one opinion in the Church concerning the divinity of the Word, yet not concerning the baptism of heretics? If therefore several had assailed the divinity of the Word, would Cyprian have thought that every bishop was free to think what he wished concerning the divinity of the Word? Was it enough therefore for Cyprian that some dogma should be impugned by several bishops, in order that every bishop should now be free to believe it or not to believe it? Those who dream such things concerning Cyprian are to be pitied rather than answered.

Censuitne liberum cuilibet episcopo potestatem remittendi peccata omnia Ecclesiae concedere vel denegare? De hac re tamen nullum adhuc plenarii concilii prodierat judicium, nec una apud omnes episcopos etiam erat sententia, talem enim potestatem Ecclesiae denegabat Novatianus, quem plures ex Africa, Numidia et Gallia sequebantur episcopi, teste Cypriano in Epistolis ad Antonianum 55, ad Cornelium S. pontificem 59, et ad Stephanum S. pontificem 68. Lege tamen, perlege scripta Cypriani, nullibi concessam ab ipso Novatianis invenies talem sentiendi libertatem; cum enim hanc Novatianorum opinionem Verbo Dei, seu, ut ipse loquitur, in citat. Epist. ad Antonian.: « Fidei Scripturarum divinarum » adversam existimaret. Novatianos ut haereticos traducit in Epist. ad Antonian. Illorum opinionem haeresim appellat, haereticae praesumptionis durissimam pravitatem; gravioribus

Did he judge that every bishop was free to grant or deny to the Church the power of remitting all sins? Yet concerning this matter no judgement of a plenary council had as yet come forth, nor even was there one opinion among all bishops; for Novatian denied such power to the Church, whom several bishops from Africa, Numidia, and Gaul followed, as Cyprian testifies in Letters 55 To Antonianus, 59 To Pope Cornelius, and 68 To Pope Stephen. Read nevertheless, read through the writings of Cyprian, and nowhere will you find such liberty of thinking granted by him to the Novatians; for since he thought this opinion of the Novatians contrary to the Word of God, or, as he himself speaks in the cited Letter to Antonianus, to "the Faith of the divine Scriptures," he traduces the Novatians as heretics in the Letter to Antonianus. He calls their opinion heresy, the most hard depravity of heretical presumption; to be punished with the

Editors' notes and page, col. 1385

Page

running head: 1385 PARS II. — RECENTIORUM
marginal letters: A (in col. 1386); B (in col. 1386); C (in col. 1386); D (in col. 1386)
old-edition numerals: 1332 before concilii
other: editors' matter: scribentes aut... gra- (entire column); words split at column breaks: scribentes (praescribentes), gra-
other: the word gravioribus was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1386

PL 3:1386

Ecclesiae poenis puniendam in cit. epist. ad Antonian. et ad Steph. 68; adeo alienus erat a credendo ipsis fuisse liberum in hoc fidei negotio sentire quid vellent.

heavier punishments of the Church, in the cited Letter to Antonianus and Letter 68 To Stephen; so alien was he from believing that they were free in this business of faith to think what they wished.

Censuitne liberum cuilibet episcopo uti vino vel aqua in calice Dominico offerendo? Audi Cyprianum in epist. 63, ad Cecilium: « Viderit, frater carissime, si quis de antecessoribus nostris vel ignoranter vel simpliciter non hoc observavit et tenuit quod nos Dominus facere exemplo et magisterio suo docuit, potest simplicitati ejus de indulgentia veniam concedi, nobis vero non poterit ignosci qui nunc a Domino admoniti et instructi sumus, ut calicem Dominicum vino mistum secundum quod Dominus obtulit offeramus, et de hoc quoque ad collegas nostros litteras dirigamus, ut ubique lex evangelica et traditio Dominica servetur et ab eo quod Christus et docuit et fecit non recedatur. » Frustra Cypriano opponebant episcopi aquarii se veterum ecclesiarum suarum consuetudinem sequi, atque suorum antecessorum vestigiis inhaerere, qui sine vino calicem Dominicum offerri posse judicaverant. His omnibus auditis, et viriliter refutatis Cyprianus aperte pronuntiat vinum in calice Dominico offerendo ab omnibus « ubique » adhibendum esse; at quoniam tandem motivo ducebatur S. Doctor ad rem aquariis episcopis denegandam, quae a nullo adhuc sancita erat Ecclesiae decreto? Ab ipso disce: « Christus, inquit in epist. citata, docuit ut calicem Dominicum vino mistum offeramus. Porro servetur ubique lex evangelica, Dominica traditio; ab eo quod Christus docuit non recedatur. » Non ergo existimabat Cyprianus in his, quae a Christo tradita vel praecepta asserebat, liberum cuilibet episcopo esse sentire vel agere quid vellet.

Did he judge that every bishop was free to use wine or water in offering the cup of the Lord? Hear Cyprian in Letter 63, To Caecilius: "If anyone of our predecessors, dearest brother, either ignorantly or simply did not observe and hold this which the Lord by His example and teaching taught us to do, let him see to it; pardon can be granted from indulgence to his simplicity, whereas we cannot be forgiven who have now been admonished and instructed by the Lord that we should offer the cup of the Lord mixed with wine according to what the Lord offered, and concerning this also should direct letters to our colleagues, so that everywhere the evangelical law and the tradition of the Lord may be kept, and there may be no departure from that which Christ both taught and did." In vain did the Aquarian bishops oppose to Cyprian that they followed the custom of their ancient churches, and clung to the footsteps of their predecessors, who had judged that the cup of the Lord could be offered without wine. After hearing all these things and manfully refuting them, Cyprian openly pronounces that wine must be used by all "everywhere" in offering the cup of the Lord; now by what motive, pray, was the holy Doctor led to deny to the Aquarian bishops a thing which had as yet been enacted by no decree of the Church? Learn from himself: "Christ," says he in the cited letter, "taught that we should offer the cup of the Lord mixed with wine. Furthermore, let the evangelical law, the tradition of the Lord, be kept everywhere; let there be no departure from that which Christ taught." Cyprian therefore did not think that in those things which he asserted to have been handed down or commanded by Christ, every bishop was free to think or do what he wished.

Haec igitur vera Cypriani doctrina, in rebus scilicet fidei unanimitatem in Ecclesia necessario ab omnibus esse servandam; haec, addo, apud ipsum constans ac perpetua; « Christus inquit, in lib. de Unitate Ecclesiae, in Ecclesia concordes atque unanimes esse praecepit... Docet Dominus et admonet a talibus (reprobis circa fidem) recedendum. » Et in epist. 25, ad Caldonium: « Ut apud omnes unus actus et una consensio secundum Domini praecepta teneatur: » et in epist. 32, ad Presbyteros Carthagin. « Et in Ecclesiarum statu componendo servetur ab omnibus una et fida consensio: » et in epist. 43, ad plebem universam: « Qui mandatum Dei rejiciunt et traditionem suam statuere conantur, fortiter a vobis et firmiter respuantur. Et in epist. 46, ad Maximum et Nicostratum confessores: « Nam cum unanimitas et concordia nostra scindi omnino non debeat. » Et in epist. 59, ae Cornelium S. Pontificem: « Nulla societas fidei et perfidiae esse potest. » Et in epist. 69, ad Magnum: « In Ecclesia Dei non nisi concordes atque unanimes habitant.... Apostolus Paulus docet et praecipit haereticum vitandum esse

This therefore is the true doctrine of Cyprian, namely that in matters of faith unanimity must necessarily be kept by all in the Church; this, I add, is constant and perpetual with him: "Christ," says he in the book On the Unity of the Church, "commanded us to be concordant and of one mind in the Church... The Lord teaches and admonishes that we must withdraw from such (reprobates concerning the faith)." And in Letter 25, To Caldonius: "That among all one action and one agreement may be held according to the precepts of the Lord"; and in Letter 32, To the Presbyters of Carthage: "And in settling the state of the Churches let one and a faithful agreement be kept by all"; and in Letter 43, To the Whole People: "Let those who reject the commandment of God and endeavour to establish their own tradition be bravely and firmly spurned by you." And in Letter 46, To Maximus and Nicostratus the Confessors: "For since our unanimity and concord ought by no means to be rent." And in Letter 59, To Pope Cornelius: "There can be no fellowship of faith and perfidy." And in Letter 69, To Magnus: "In the Church of God none dwell save those who are concordant and of one mind... The Apostle Paul teaches and commands that a heretic must be shunned

Editors' notes and page, col. 1386

Page

running head: RECENTIORUM EXCURSUS. 1386
marginal letters: A vioribus Ecclesiae poenis; B collegas nostros litteras; C nica traditio; ab; D teros Carthagin. « Et
old-edition numerals: 1333 before « Et
other: missing closing guillemet after respuantur.; editors' matter: vioribus Ecclesiae... esse (entire column); word split from preceding column: vioribus (gravioribus)

PL 3:1387

ut perversum et peccatorem. » Paria missa facio; at ex relatis sic ratiocinari licet, qui judicabat unanimitatem in fide ita esse necessarium ut a reprobis circa fidem recedendum esset, qui unam ob omnibus consensionem servandam esse ex Christi mandato credebat, qui nullam fidei et perfidiae societatem esse posse censebat, ille profecto non existimabat cuilibet episcopo liberum esse in rebus fidei varie sentire; quid enim unanimitati magis contrarium quam haec sentiendi libertas? Atqui Cyprianus judicabat unanimitatem in fide ita esse necessariam ut a reprobis circa fidem recedendum esset, etc., ut patet ex textibus citatis; ergo.

as perverse and a sinner." Similar passages I pass over; yet from the things related we may reason thus: he who judged unanimity in faith to be so necessary that one must withdraw from reprobates concerning the faith, who believed that one agreement must be kept by all by the commandment of Christ, who judged that there can be no fellowship of faith and perfidy, assuredly did not think that every bishop is free to think variously in matters of faith; for what is more contrary to unanimity than this liberty of thinking? But Cyprian judged unanimity in faith to be so necessary that one must withdraw from reprobates concerning the faith, etc., as is plain from the texts cited; therefore.

Ex his omnibus duo constant: 1o In iis quae Cyprianus ad fidem referebat nemini varie sentiendi libertatem ipsum concedere. 2o Cyprianum cuilibet episcopo libertatem concessisse contra suam de Baptismo haereticorum opinionem sentiendi: unde manifestissime patet S. Cyprianum non rem fidei sed merae disciplinae censuisse totam hanc de Baptismo haereticorum quaestionem.

From all these things two points are established: 1st, In those things which Cyprian referred to faith he granted to no one the liberty of thinking variously. 2nd, Cyprian granted to every bishop the liberty of thinking against his own opinion concerning the Baptism of heretics: whence it is most manifestly plain that St. Cyprian judged this whole question concerning the Baptism of heretics to be a matter not of faith, but of mere discipline.

At tandem ad occludenda omnia adversariorum effugia sit in exemplum haec ipsamet de Baptismo haereticorum controversia. Censuitne liberum cuilibet episcopo ab haereticis baptizatos iterato tingere vel non tingere beptismo, in hypothesi quod in Scripturis vel in traditione Apostolica contineretur eos non esse rebaptizandos? Cum enim Stephanus Pontifex maximus Africanis mandasset, ut traditionem de non rebaptizandis haereticis observarent, respondet Cyprianus justum ac legitimum hoc Stephani esse mandatum, et revera ab Africanis servandam esse hanc Stephani traditionem, in hypothesi quod haec traditio sit Evangelica vel apostolica: en verba Cypriani scribentis ad Pompeium: « Nihil innovetur, inquit Stephanus, nisi quod traditum est. Unde est ista traditio? Utrumne de Dominica et evangelica auctoritate descendens? An de Apostolorum mandatis atque epistolis veniens? Ea enim facienda esse quae scripta sunt Deus testatur et proponit ad Jesum Nave dicens: Non recebet liber Legis hujus ex ore tuo, sed meditaberis in eo die ac nocte ut observes facere omnia quae scripta sunt; in eo item Dominus apostolos suos mittens mandat baptizari gentes et doceri ut observent omnia quaecunque ille praecepit; si ergo aut in Evangelio praecipitur aut in apostolorum Epistolis aut actibus continetur, ut a quacunque haeresi venientes non baptizentur, sed tantum manus illis imponatur in poenitentiam, observetur divina haec et sancta traditio. » Observari ergo debebatur juxta S. Cyprianum quod a Christo vel ab apostolis in hac de baptismo haereticorum controversia determinatum erat; cum ergo libertatem cuilibet episcopo concesserit haereticos rebaptizandi, vel non rebaptizandi, profecto existimavit nil circa rebaptizationem a Christo, vel ab apostolis determinatum fuisse; ad fidem

But finally, to shut off all the evasions of our adversaries, let this very controversy concerning the Baptism of heretics serve for an example. Did he judge that every bishop was free to dip again or not to dip with baptism those baptized by heretics, on the hypothesis that it was contained in the Scriptures or in Apostolic tradition that they must not be rebaptized? For when Stephen the Supreme Pontiff had commanded the Africans to observe the tradition concerning not rebaptizing heretics, Cyprian replies that this command of Stephen is just and legitimate, and that in truth this tradition of Stephen must be kept by the Africans, on the hypothesis that this tradition is Evangelical or apostolic: behold the words of Cyprian writing to Pompeius: "Let nothing be innovated, says Stephen, save what has been handed down. Whence is that tradition? Whether descending from the authority of the Lord and of the Gospel? Or coming from the commandments and epistles of the Apostles? For that those things which are written must be done, God testifies and propounds to Jesus the son of Nun, saying: The book of this Law shall not depart out of your mouth, but you shall meditate in it day and night, that you may observe to do all things that are written; in like manner the Lord sending His apostles commands the nations to be baptized and taught to observe all things whatsoever He commanded; if therefore it is either commanded in the Gospel, or contained in the Epistles or Acts of the Apostles, that those coming from any heresy whatsoever should not be baptized, but only hands should be laid upon them unto penance, let this divine and holy tradition be observed." According to St. Cyprian, therefore, that had to be observed which had been determined by Christ or by the apostles in this controversy concerning the baptism of heretics; since therefore he granted to every bishop the liberty of rebaptizing or not rebaptizing heretics, he assuredly thought that nothing concerning rebaptism had been determined by Christ or by the apostles; to faith, therefore,

Editors' notes and page, col. 1387

Page

running head: 1387 DE HAERETICORUM BA
marginal letters: A (in col. 1388); B (in col. 1388); C (in col. 1388); D (in col. 1388)
old-edition numerals: 1334 after praecipitur
other: editors' matter: ut perversum... fidem (entire column)

PL 3:1388

ergo pertinere non judicavit hanc de Baptismo haereticorum controversiam.

he did not judge that this controversy concerning the Baptism of heretics pertained.

IX. S. Cyprianus nullum in terris agnoscebat tribunal, cui in causa baptismatis haereticorum cedere deberet, uni et soli Christo potestatem de actu suo judicandi tribuebat: « Expectemus, inquit in exordio conc. Carthag. III, universi judicium Domini nostri Jesu Christi, qui unus et solus habet potestatem de actu nostro judicandi. » Fere similia scribebat S. Doctor ad Magnum et ad Stephanum R. Pontificem. At verumne esset in rebus fidei hoc Cypriani pronuntiatum? Numquid in rebus fidei quilibet episcopus, imo natio integra concilio generali morem gerere non debet? Numquid unus et solus Christus potestatem habet judicandi de alicujus episcopi vel concilii particularis actu, qui fidem aliquatenus spectaret? Restat igitur ut S. Cyprianus hanc de baptismo haereticorum quaestionem iis merae retulerit disciplinae capitibus, quae certis in provinciis ita mordicus retineri possunt, ut ad ea mutanda nec valeat S Pontificis aut concilii generalis auctoritas. Hic vide, quaeso, candide lector, quantum haereticis patrocinentur, qui ex Catholicis ad pessumdandam Romani Pontificis auctoritatem clamitare non cessant, Cyprianum in hac controversia fidei dogma vindicare voluisse. Si hoc semel ipsis concedatur, concedendum erit et haereticis nec concilium generale, judice Cypriano, supremum in dirimendis fidei controversiis esse tribunal; huic enim aeque ac S. Pontifici denegat S. Doctor potestatem de actu suo judicandi, tam nitide, tam aperte uni, et soli Christo eam tribuens: « Qui unus, inquit, et solus habet potestatem de actu nostro judicandi. » Profecto prosequitur eminent. de Bissi in citato jam documento pastorali, an. 1728, pag. 62: Est-ce là déclarer qu'on s'en rapporte à la décision d'un concile plénier?

IX. St. Cyprian recognized no tribunal on earth to which he ought to yield in the cause of the baptism of heretics; to Christ alone and only did he attribute the power of judging concerning his action: "Let us all await," says he in the opening of the Third Council of Carthage, "the judgement of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who alone and only has the power of judging concerning our action." Almost similar things wrote the holy Doctor to Magnus and to Stephen the Roman Pontiff. Yet would this pronouncement of Cyprian be true in matters of faith? In matters of faith ought not every bishop, nay, an entire nation, to obey a general council? Does Christ alone and only have the power of judging concerning the action of any bishop or particular council which in any way regarded faith? It remains therefore that St. Cyprian referred this question concerning the baptism of heretics to those heads of mere discipline which in certain provinces can be retained so tenaciously that neither the authority of the Supreme Pontiff nor that of a general council avails to change them. Here see, I pray, candid reader, how much those of the Catholics patronize heretics who, in order to ruin the authority of the Roman Pontiff, cease not to cry out that Cyprian in this controversy wished to vindicate a dogma of faith! If this be once granted to them, it will have to be granted to heretics also that not even a general council, with Cyprian as judge, is the supreme tribunal in deciding controversies of faith; for to it equally as to the Supreme Pontiff does the holy Doctor deny the power of judging concerning his action, so clearly, so openly attributing it to Christ alone and only: "Who alone and only," says he, "has the power of judging concerning our action." Assuredly His Eminence de Bissy continues in the pastoral instruction already cited, of the year 1728, page 62: "Is that to declare that one refers the matter to the decision of a plenary council?"

X. S. Cyprianus cum iis qui a sua opinione recedebant pacem, concordiam ac communionem constantissime servavit: « Nos, inquit, suam ad Jubaianum epistolam concludens, quantum in nobis est propter haereticos cum collegis et coepiscopis nostris non contendimus, cum quibus divinam concordiam et Dominicam pacem tenemus.... servatur a nobis patienter et firmiter charitas animi, collegii honor, vinculum fidei, et concordia sacerdotii. » Et in epist. 72 ad Stephanum Rom. Pontificem. « Caeterum scimus quosdam quod semel imbiberint nolle deponere, nec propositum suum facile mutare; sed salvo inter collegas pacis et concordiae vinculo, quaedam propria, quae apud se semel sint usurpata retinere. Qua in re nec nos vim cuiquam facimus aut legem damus: » et in exordio concilii Carthag. III: « Superest ut de hac ipsa re singuli quid sentiamus proferamus neminem judicantes aut a jure communionis aliquem, si diversum censuerit, amoventes. » De Cypriano id expresse testatur S. Hieronymus in Dialogo adversus

X. St. Cyprian most constantly kept peace, concord, and communion with those who departed from his opinion: "We," says he, concluding his letter to Jubaianus, "so far as in us lies, do not contend on account of heretics with our colleagues and fellow-bishops, with whom we hold divine concord and the peace of the Lord... there is kept by us patiently and firmly charity of mind, the honour of our college, the bond of faith, and the concord of the priesthood." And in Letter 72, To Stephen the Roman Pontiff: "For the rest, we know that some are unwilling to lay aside what they have once imbibed, nor easily change their purpose, but saving the bond of peace and concord among colleagues, retain certain things of their own which have once been adopted among them. In which matter neither do we do violence to anyone or give a law"; and in the opening of the Third Council of Carthage: "It remains that concerning this very matter we each bring forward what we think, judging no one, nor removing anyone from the right of communion if he judges differently." Concerning Cyprian St. Jerome expressly testifies to this in the Dialogue against

Editors' notes and page, col. 1388

Page

running head: TICORUM BAPTISMATE. 1388
marginal letters: A ergo pertinere non; B fidem aliquatenus spectaret?; C nitide, tam aperte; D collegii honor, vinculum
old-edition numerals: 1335 before Qua
other: VIII. was misprinted VII. in col. 1384, so IX. follows here; editors' matter: ergo pertinere... adver- (entire column); word split at end of column: adver-
other: the word adversus was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1389

PL 3:1389

Lucifer., c. 9; id centies affirmat S. Augustinus in suis de Baptismo adversus Donatistas libris. Et quod velim observes, pacem hanc cum aliter sentientibus, tunc etiam se tenuisse profitetur antistes Carthaginensis, quando contrarium Rom. Pontificis judicium nondum expertus fuerat, ut patet ex verbis citatis, tum Epist. ad Jubaian., tum Epist. ad Stephanum. Verum itane se gessisset S. Doctor cum adversariis a quibus fidem impugnari censuisset; Cyprianus, inquam, qui a reprobis circa fidem recedendum esse, et quidem ex praecepto divino, affirmat in lib. de Unitate Ecclesiae? Qui firmiter respuendos eos esse docet qui traditiones suas Dei mandatis contrarias statuere conantur in epist. ad plebem universam 43? Qui nullam fidei et perfidiae societatem esse posse tradit, in epist. 56, ad Cornelium? Qui tandem ab iis discedendum esse pronuntiat, qui Christi doctrinae non acquiescunt, in Epist. ad Pompeium? « Si quis, inquit Tomassinus dissert. 2 de Bapt. haeret., p. 48, de fide a collegis dissenserit contumax a pace ejiciendus est et communione. » Cum ergo S. Cyprianus, salvo inter collegas pacis et concordiae vinculo de hac baptismi controversia disputari posse crediderit, et cum diversum sentientibus communionem firmiter servaverit, manifestum est ipsum existimasse illaesam et intactam in toto hoc dissidio fidem remanere, ac nullatenus a suis adversariis impeti vel obscurari. Non ergo fidei, sed merae disciplinae hanc esse controversiam judicavit.

the Luciferians, chapter 9; St. Augustine affirms this a hundred times in his books On Baptism against the Donatists. And what I would have you observe, the prelate of Carthage professes that he held this peace with those who thought otherwise even at that time when he had not yet experienced the contrary judgement of the Roman Pontiff, as is plain from the words cited, both of the Letter to Jubaianus and of the Letter to Stephen. Yet would the holy Doctor have borne himself thus with adversaries by whom he had judged the faith to be impugned—Cyprian, I say, who affirms in the book On the Unity of the Church that one must withdraw from reprobates concerning the faith, and indeed by divine precept? Who teaches in Letter 43, To the Whole People, that those must be firmly spurned who endeavour to establish their own traditions contrary to the commandments of God? Who hands down in Letter 56 (or 59), To Cornelius, that there can be no fellowship of faith and perfidy? Who finally pronounces in the Letter to Pompeius that one must depart from those who do not acquiesce in the doctrine of Christ? "If anyone," says Thomassin, Dissertation 2 On the Baptism of Heretics, page 48, "dissents obstinately from his colleagues concerning faith, he must be cast out from peace and communion." Since therefore St. Cyprian believed that this controversy of baptism could be disputed saving the bond of peace and concord among colleagues, and firmly kept communion with those who thought differently, it is manifest that he thought that the faith remained unharmed and untouched in this whole disagreement, and was in no way assailed or obscured by his adversaries. Not of faith, therefore, but of mere discipline did he judge this controversy to be.

At, inquies, non ideo pacem cum aliter sentientibus servavit S. Cyprianus, quia de fide non agi in hac controversia putaret, sed quia censebat pacem cum iis non esse rumpendam, a quibus etiam fides impeteretur, quamdiu res ultimo Ecclesiae judicio nondum est definita, qualis tunc temporis erat quaestio de rebaptizandis haereticis. Pudenda commenta, quibus soli pascantur qui inventa quaeque deglutiunt; si Cyprianus existimabat hostes fidei a conciliis particularibus damnandos non esse, nec communione privandos ante ultimam Ecclesiae definitionem, male ergo tam saepius, tam generice, dicebat « a reprobis circa fidem recedendum esse, firmiter respuendos eos esse qui traditiones suas Dei mandatis contrarias statuere conarentur, ab iis discedendum esse qui Christi doctrinae non acquiescerent; » dicere debuisset a talibus non nisi post Ecclesiae definitionem esse recedendum; et vero haecne veterum Patrum agendi ratio erga eos, a quibus fidem impugnari judicabant? Itane se gesserunt Antiocheni Patres erga Paulum Samosatenum ejusque asseclas? itane Patres Alexandrini erga Arium et episcopos ipsi faventes? Itane Patres Mediolanenses erga Photinum? Itane Patres Alexandrini erga Origenem ejusque sectatores? Itane Patres Constantinopolitani erga Eutychetem? Itane Patres Caesaraugustani erga Priscillianos? Exspectaruntne supremam Ecclesiae definitionem ad eos damnandos

Yet, you will say, St. Cyprian kept peace with those who thought otherwise not because he thought that in this controversy it was not a question of faith, but because he judged that peace ought not to be broken with those even by whom the faith was assailed, so long as the matter has not yet been defined by the final judgement of the Church, such as at that time was the question concerning rebaptizing heretics. Shameful figments, whereon they alone may feed who swallow every invention! If Cyprian thought that enemies of the faith ought not to be condemned by particular councils, nor deprived of communion before the final definition of the Church, wrongly therefore did he so often, so generically say "that one must withdraw from reprobates concerning the faith, that those must be firmly spurned who endeavoured to establish their own traditions contrary to the commandments of God, that one must depart from those who did not acquiesce in the doctrine of Christ"; he ought to have said that one must withdraw from such men only after the definition of the Church; and in truth was this the manner of acting of the ancient Fathers towards those by whom they judged the faith to be impugned? Did the Fathers of Antioch bear themselves thus towards Paul of Samosata and his followers? Did the Fathers of Alexandria bear themselves thus towards Arius and the bishops favouring him? Did the Fathers of Milan bear themselves thus towards Photinus? Did the Fathers of Alexandria bear themselves thus towards Origen and his followers? Did the Fathers of Constantinople bear themselves thus towards Eutyches? Did the Fathers of Saragossa bear themselves thus towards the Priscillianists? Did they await the supreme definition of the Church in order to condemn them

Editors' notes and page, col. 1389

Page

running head: 1389 PARS II. — RECENTIORU
marginal letters: A (in col. 1390); B (in col. 1390); C (in col. 1390); D (in col. 1390)
old-edition numerals: 1336 before Patres
other: semicolon after censuisset; used as question mark; editors' matter: sus Lucifer.,... damnandos (entire column); word split from preceding column: sus (adversus)

PL 3:1390

ac communione privandos? Absit ergo ut illud Cypriano tribuamus, quod cum nullum in ejus scriptis habeat fundamentum, a veterum Patrum sensu et agendi ratione tam sit alienum.

and deprive them of communion? Far be it therefore that we should attribute that to Cyprian which, since it has no foundation in his writings, is so alien from the mind and manner of acting of the ancient Fathers!

Praeterea dicant nobis adversarii, an Cyprianus pro zelo ac studio tuendae fidei integritatis debuerit pacem et communionem cum iis tenere, a quibus, si adversariis credimus, praecipuum fidei nostrae dogma spreta conciliorum Africanorum auctoritate pessumdari putabat? Demum si ad mentem Cypriani ante ultimam Ecclesiae definitionem a conciliis particularibus damnandi non erant nec communione privandi qui fidem impugnabant, profecto, jam nullo modo ab Ecclesia damnari potuissent ac communione privari. Non quidem ab Ecclesia in concilio generali congregata, talis enim congregatio tunc temporis moraliter impossibilis erat, non etiam ab Ecclesia, ut vulgo dicitur, dispersa, judicium enim Ecclesiae dispersae pendet a judiciis ecclesiarum particularium, quarum nulla in hypothesi juxta Cyprianum eos ante Ecclesiae definitionem damnare debebat, quomodo ergo ab Ecclesia ac dispersa damnati aliquando fuissent, quos nulla damnasset peculiaris Ecclesia? His haereant adversarii necesse est, aut alia excogitent. Immotum igitur maneat, Cyprianum ab illis fidem impeti non existimasse, quos a conciliis Carthaginensibus damnari noluit, et cum quibus pacem ac communionem constanter servavit.

Besides, let our adversaries tell us whether Cyprian, in accordance with his zeal and study for defending the integrity of the faith, ought to have held peace and communion with those by whom, if we believe our adversaries, he thought the chief dogma of our faith was ruined in contempt of the authority of the African councils? Finally, if according to the mind of Cyprian those who impugned the faith were not to be condemned by particular councils nor deprived of communion before the final definition of the Church, assuredly they could now in no way have been condemned by the Church and deprived of communion: not indeed by the Church assembled in a general council, for such an assembly at that time was morally impossible; nor even by the Church dispersed, as it is commonly called, for the judgement of the Church dispersed depends upon the judgements of the particular churches, none of which on the hypothesis according to Cyprian ought to have condemned them before the definition of the Church; how then would they ever have been condemned by the Church dispersed, whom no particular Church had condemned? In these straits our adversaries must stick fast, or devise other things. Let it remain unshaken, therefore, that Cyprian did not think that the faith was assailed by those whom he was unwilling to have condemned by the councils of Carthage, and with whom he constantly kept peace and communion.

Haec quibusdam aliis compendii causa praetermissis, luculenter evincunt momenta causam de baptismate haereticorum Cypriano visam fuisse rem non fidei, sed merae disciplinae; sive enim res ipsa ad Cypriani mentem examinetur, sive ejus in hac controversia agendi ratio attendatur, utrumque assertionis nostrae veritatem ostendit.

These considerations, certain others having been passed over for the sake of brevity, lucidly prove that the cause concerning the baptism of heretics seemed to Cyprian a matter not of faith, but of mere discipline; for whether the matter itself be examined according to the mind of Cyprian, or his manner of acting in this controversy be attended to, both show the truth of our assertion.

A Cypriano disce originem, disce naturam, disce consectaria suae opinionis et praxis et ad fidem eam revoca si potes, illius enim originem non in Christo, non in apostolis, sed in Agrippino constituit. Illam propugnat non ut fide credendam, non ut pertinentem ad fidem, sed tantum ut fidei congruentem et ad eam magis accedentem, ut quid melius, ut quid utilius, ut aliquid proprium certis provinciis, et jure retinendum, quando semel ab ipsis est usurpatum, uno verbo de disciplina se contendere aperte profitetur.

From Cyprian learn the origin, learn the nature, learn the corollaries of his opinion and practice, and refer it to faith if you can; for he places its origin not in Christ, not in the apostles, but in Agrippinus. He maintains it not as to be believed by faith, not as pertaining to faith, but only as congruent with faith and approaching nearer to it, as something better, as something more useful, as something proper to certain provinces, and rightly to be retained when once it has been adopted by them; in a word, he openly professes that he contends concerning discipline.

Si de fide tenuisset nullum esse baptisma ab haereticis collatum, nullam consequenter salutis infantium cum solo haereticorum baptismo defunctorum spem habuisset; tamen affirmat de eorum salute desperandum non esse; si fidem ab adversariis pessumdari in hac quaestione censuisset, dicendum foret, quod nemo dicet catholicus, S. Pontificem scilicet, et cum ipso maximam episcoporum partem Cypriani judicio tunc temporis in fide errasse, imo universas totius orbis Ecclesias ante Agrippinum.

If he had held it to be of faith that baptism conferred by heretics is null, he would consequently have had no hope of the salvation of infants deceased with only the baptism of heretics; yet he affirms that one must not despair of their salvation; if he had judged that the faith was ruined by his adversaries in this question, it would have to be said—what no Catholic will say—namely that the Supreme Pontiff, and with him the greatest part of the bishops, in the judgement of Cyprian erred in faith at that time, nay, all the Churches of the whole world before Agrippinus.

Si Cypriani spectes agendi rationem, cuilibet

If you look at Cyprian's manner of acting, to every

Editors' notes and page, col. 1390

Page

running head: RECENTIORUM EXCURSUS. 1390
marginal letters: A ac communione privandos?; B Ecclesia in concilio; C baptismate haereticorum Cypriano; D contendere aperte profitetur.
old-edition numerals: 1337 before universas
other: editors' matter: ac communione... cuilibet (entire column)

PL 3:1391

episcopo libertatem concedit in hac quaestione sentiendi quid vult, cum aliter sentientibus pacem concordiam et communionem constantissime servat, uni et soli Christo tribuit potestatem de actu suo judicandi; porro in disciplinae negotio cum aliquo colore haec disseruntur, in capite fidei catholicae alienissima essent omnia. Nunc ad dissolvenda quae objectantur procedamus.

bishop he grants the liberty of thinking what he wishes in this question, with those who think otherwise he most constantly keeps peace, concord, and communion, to Christ alone and only does he attribute the power of judging concerning his action; now in a business of discipline these things are discoursed with some colour, whereas in a head of the Catholic faith they would all be most alien. Now let us proceed to dissolve the objections which are brought forward.

SOLVUNTUR OBJECTIONES.

THE OBJECTIONS ARE SOLVED.

Objiciunt: 1o Cyprianus suam de haereticis rebaptizandis opinionem multis probat Scripturae textibus, ut videre est in epist. ad Magnum, 69; ad episcopos Numidiae, 70; ad Stephanum R. P., 72; ad Jubaian., 73; et ad Pompeium, 74. Ergo eam a Deo traditam censuit et consequenter fide credendam.

They object: 1st, Cyprian proves his opinion concerning rebaptizing heretics by many texts of Scripture, as may be seen in Letter 69, To Magnus; 70, To the Bishops of Numidia; 72, To Stephen the Roman Pontiff; 73 (or 75), To Jubaianus; and 74, To Pompeius. Therefore he judged it handed down by God, and consequently to be believed by faith.

Respondeo. Dato antecedente, nego consequentiam; non enim in rebus fidei tantum, verum etiam in rebus merae disciplinae saepius afferuntur sacrae Scripturae loca, ad ostendendam scilicet congruentiam alicujus disciplinae cum iis quae a Deo sunt revelata, ut ex hac congruentia illius aequitas vindicetur. Sic S. Basilius, epist. 199, juxta novam editionem ad Amphilochium, cap. 32, ex Scripturis probat episcopum, presbyterum, diaconum depositos propter aliquod crimen non debere propter idem crimen communione ecclesiastica privari. Sic D. Hieronymus, Epist. ad Theoph., adversus errorem Joannis Hierosolym. probat auctoritate tum Veteris et Novi Testamenti legitimam fuisse Pauliniani factam a S. Epiphanio ordinationem, Paulinianus tum temporibus triginta tantum annos esset natus. Sic S. Augustinus lib. de Fide et Operibus, c. 26, probat auctoritate S. Scripturae quaedam esse crimina excommunicatione plectenda, quaedam non publica poenitentia sed quibusdam correptionum medicamentis sananda; sic S. Leo Magnus, epist. 92, ad Rusticum Narbon. episcopum, c. 2, probat ex Scriptura presbyteros et diaconos non esse poenitentiae publicae subjiciendos, quae certe omnia nullatenus fidem, sed unam spectant Ecclesiae disciplinam. Esto igitur probaverit S. Doctor suam opinionem multis Scripturae textibus, non ideo censuit ad fidem eam pertinere.

I answer: Granting the antecedent, I deny the consequence; for not only in matters of faith, but also in matters of mere discipline passages of sacred Scripture are quite often brought forward, namely to show the congruence of some discipline with those things which have been revealed by God, so that from this congruence its equity may be vindicated. Thus St. Basil, Letter 199 according to the new edition, To Amphilochius, chapter 32, proves from the Scriptures that a bishop, presbyter, or deacon deposed on account of some crime ought not on account of the same crime to be deprived of ecclesiastical communion. Thus St. Jerome, in the Letter to Theophilus against the error of John of Jerusalem, proves by the authority both of the Old and of the New Testament that the ordination of Paulinianus performed by St. Epiphanius was legitimate, seeing that Paulinianus at that time was already thirty years old. Thus St. Augustine, in the book On Faith and Works, chapter 26, proves by the authority of Holy Scripture that certain crimes are to be punished with excommunication, and certain to be healed not by public penance, but by certain remedies of rebukes; thus St. Leo the Great, Letter 92, To Rusticus Bishop of Narbonne, chapter 2, proves from Scripture that presbyters and deacons must not be subjected to public penance—all of which things certainly regard faith in no way, but the discipline of the Church alone. Grant therefore that the holy Doctor proved his opinion by many texts of Scripture, he did not on that account judge that it pertained to faith.

Et vero nonne Cyprianus ipse plura Scripturae loca retulit ad ea stabilienda quae omnium judicio meram spectabant disciplinam? Quis neget rem esse purae disciplinae lapsis concedere pacem et communionem ecclesiasticam ante, vel post peractam poenitentiam canonicam? Lege tamen Cypriani tractatum de Lapsis, ejus Epistolas ad presbyteros Carthagin 16, ad presbyteros Romanos 30, ad Lapsos 33, ad presbyteros Carthag. 34, plura Scripturae loca reperies a Cypriano citata ad suam in hoc negotio opinionem stabiliendam. Quis neget rem esse purae disciplinae merique praecepti ecclesiastici aquae vino mistionem in calice Dominico offerendo? Atque tamen necessitatem ex divinis Scripturis probat S. Cyprianus in epist. 63 ad Caecilium; hoc ergo probationis

And in truth did not Cyprian himself report several passages of Scripture for establishing those things which in the judgement of all regarded mere discipline? Who would deny that it is a matter of pure discipline to grant peace and ecclesiastical communion to the lapsed before or after performing canonical penance? Read nevertheless Cyprian's treatise On the Lapsed, his Letters 16 To the Presbyters of Carthage, 30 To the Roman Presbyters, 33 To the Lapsed, 34 To the Presbyters of Carthage, and you will find several passages of Scripture cited by Cyprian for establishing his opinion in this business. Who would deny that the mixing of water with wine in offering the cup of the Lord is a matter of pure discipline and of mere ecclesiastical precept? And yet St. Cyprian proves its necessity from the divine Scriptures in Letter 63, To Caecilius; this kind of proof, therefore,

Editors' notes and page, col. 1391

Page

running head: 1391 DE HAERETICORUM BA
marginal letters: A (in col. 1392); B (in col. 1392); C (in col. 1392); D (in col. 1392)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: episcopo libertatem... proba- (entire column); word split at end of column: proba-
other: the word probationis was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1392

PL 3:1392

genus in rebus merae disciplinae aeque ac fidei a Cypriano usurpabatur. Male igitur ex eo coucluditur S. Cyprianum suam de rebaptizandis haereticis opinionem fidei adscripsisse.

was used by Cyprian in matters of mere discipline equally as of faith. Wrongly therefore from this is it concluded that St. Cyprian ascribed his opinion concerning rebaptizing heretics to faith.

Dixi dato antecedente: nunquam enim S. Doctor suam opinionem ex Scripturis directe probavit ut ejus in hac quaestione scripta attente perlustranti patebit. Probat quidem ex Scripturis haereticos Christi esse adversarios in epist. ad Jubaian., et ad Pompeium; Ecclesiam unam esse epist. ad Magnum et ad Pompeium; unum baptisma et unam esse fidem in epist. ad Episcopos Numidiae et ad Pompeium; illos solos Spiritum sanctum dare posse qui ipsum habent, in epist. ad Magnum; solis Ecclesiae praepositis licere baptizare in epist. ad Jubaian.; blasphemantes in Patrem non posse consequi remissionem peccatorum in epist. ad Jubaian.; solam Ecclesiam Deo filios generare, in epist. ad Pompeium; et tandem baptismi necessitatem in epist. 72, ad Stephanum. Ex iis omnibus quae ex Scripturis confirmabat, aliquid concludere in favorem suae opinionis variis ratiociniis conabatur; at nunquam ex Scripturis directe probavit invalidum esse baptisma ab haereticis collatum, ab hereticis baptizatos ad Ecclesiam venientes iterato baptismo esse tingendos.

I said "granting the antecedent": for the holy Doctor never directly proved his opinion from the Scriptures, as will be plain to anyone attentively surveying his writings in this question. He proves indeed from the Scriptures that heretics are the adversaries of Christ, in the Letters to Jubaianus and to Pompeius; that the Church is one, in the Letters to Magnus and to Pompeius; that there is one baptism and one faith, in the Letters to the Bishops of Numidia and to Pompeius; that those alone can give the Holy Spirit who have Him, in the Letter to Magnus; that it is lawful for the prelates of the Church alone to baptize, in the Letter to Jubaianus; that those who blaspheme against the Father cannot obtain the remission of sins, in the Letter to Jubaianus; that the Church alone begets children unto God, in the Letter to Pompeius; and finally the necessity of baptism, in Letter 72, To Stephen. From all those things which he confirmed from the Scriptures, he endeavoured by various reasonings to conclude something in favour of his opinion; yet never did he directly prove from the Scriptures that baptism conferred by heretics is invalid, or that those baptized by heretics when coming to the Church must be dipped with a repeated baptism.

Objic. II. Cyprianus asserit ex hac de haereticorum baptismo quaestione pendere originem fidei et salutis aeternae: « Neque enim, inquit in epist. ad Jubaian., parva res et modica conceditur quando a nobis baptisma eorum in acceptum refertur cum inde incipiat omnis fidei origo et ad spem vitae aeternae salutaris ingressio. » Atqui ex controversia merae disciplinae non pendet fidei et salutis origo, ergo ut merae disciplinae quaestionem non inspexit.

Objection II. Cyprian asserts that upon this question concerning the baptism of heretics depends the origin of faith and of eternal salvation: "For neither," says he in the Letter to Jubaianus, "is it a small and slight thing that is granted when their baptism is accepted by us, since thence begins the whole origin of faith and the saving entrance to the hope of eternal life." But upon a controversy of mere discipline the origin of faith and salvation does not depend; therefore he did not look upon it as a question of mere discipline.

Resp. Nego majorem, non enim ex rebaptizationis lite, sed ex baptismo pendere fidei et salutis aeternae originem pronuntiat in textu allato, quae duo, ni fallor, sunt plane diversa; imo si Cyprianum propius attendas, contrarium ex ipso manifeste eruitur; cum enim asserat in eadem epistola de eorum salute non esse desperandum, qui cum solo haereticorum baptismo obierunt, satis ostendit ex sua opinione non pendere fidei et salutis originem. Porro ex eo quod Cyprianus dixerit a baptismo pendere fidei et salutis originem, colligi non potest ipsum dogmati suam de rebaptizandis haereticis addixisse sententiam.

Answer. I deny the major; for in the text alleged he pronounces that the origin of faith and eternal salvation depends not upon the dispute of rebaptism, but upon baptism—which two things, unless I am mistaken, are altogether diverse; nay, if you attend more closely to Cyprian, the contrary is manifestly drawn out from himself; for since he asserts in the same letter that one must not despair of the salvation of those who have died with only the baptism of heretics, he sufficiently shows that upon his opinion the origin of faith and salvation does not depend. Furthermore, from the fact that Cyprian said that upon baptism depends the origin of faith and salvation, it cannot be gathered that he assigned his opinion concerning rebaptizing heretics to dogma.

Objic. III. S. Cyprianus expresse docet a Deo revelatum esse, quod adversus Stephanum Rom. Pontificem tuebatur: « Proinde, inquit in laudata Epist. ad Jubaian., frustra quidam qui ratione vincuntur, consuetudinem nobis opponunt quasi consuetudo major sit veritate, aut id non sit in spiritualibus sequendum quod in melius fuerit a Spiritu sancto revelatum; ignosci enim potest simpliciter erranti, post inspirationem vero et revelationem factam qui in eo quod erraverat, perseverat prudens et sciens, sine venia ignorantiae peccat; praesumptione

Objection III. St. Cyprian expressly teaches that what he defended against Stephen the Roman Pontiff was revealed by God: "Accordingly," says he in the praised Letter to Jubaianus, "in vain do some who are overcome by reason oppose custom to us, as though custom were greater than truth, or that were not to be followed in spiritual things which has been revealed for the better by the Holy Spirit; for one who errs simply can be forgiven, whereas after inspiration and revelation has been made, he who knowingly and wittingly perseveres in that wherein he had erred, sins without pardon of ignorance; for he relies upon a certain presumption

Editors' notes and page, col. 1392

Page

running head: TICORUM BAPTISMATE. 1392
marginal letters: A tionis genus in; B baian.; blasphemantes in; C inde incipiat omnis; D ipsum dogmati suam
old-edition numerals: 1338 after tionis
other: editors' matter: tionis genus... praesump- (entire column); words split at column breaks: tionis (probationis), praesump-
other: the word praesumptione was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1393

PL 3:1393

enim atque obstinatione quadam nititur cum ratione superetur. » Ergo illud fidei referebat.

and obstinacy when he is overcome by reason." Therefore he referred it to faith.

Resp. Distinguo antecedens. Cyprianus docet quod adversus Stephanum tuebatur a Deo esse revelatum quibusdam, tanquam quid melius et utilius: concedo antecedens; a Deo esse revelatum vera et proprie dicta revelatione in verbo Dei scripto vel tradito contenta: nego antecedens. Itaque revelationem fusiori significatu hic sumit S. Doctor, prout omnis veritas cujuscumque sit ordinis a Deo manifestatur, qui prima veritas est, et prout omne donum desursum est descendens a Patre luminum prout, inquam, omne quod vel ad fidem, vel ad Ecclesiae disciplinam et regimen spectat, revelat, inspirat Spiritus sanctus.

Answer. I distinguish the antecedent: Cyprian teaches that what he defended against Stephen was revealed by God to some, as something better and more useful, I grant the antecedent; that it was revealed by God by a true and properly so-called revelation contained in the written or handed-down Word of God, I deny the antecedent. And so the holy Doctor here takes revelation in a broader signification, according as every truth of whatsoever order it be is manifested by God, Who is the first truth, and according as every gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights—according as, I say, the Holy Spirit reveals and inspires everything which regards either faith or the discipline and government of the Church.

1o Enim Cyprianus in textu objectato non dicit simpliciter sed in melius revelatum, quod adversus Stephanum tuebatur, non dicit Ecclesiae revelatum, sed quibusdam inter fideles, quos inexcusabiles esse contendit post talem inspirationem ac revelationem; porro haec duo intelligi non possunt de vera revelatione quae dogma catholicum exhibeat, dogma enim fidei non revelatur, ut quid melius et quid utilius, nec ac fidem subito revocatur, quod quibusdam inter fideles a Deo inspiratur, ac revelatur.

1st, For Cyprian in the text objected does not say that what he defended against Stephen was revealed simply, but "for the better"; he does not say that it was revealed to the Church, but to some among the faithful, whom he contends to be inexcusable after such inspiration and revelation; now these two things cannot be understood of a true revelation which exhibits a Catholic dogma, for a dogma of faith is not revealed as something better and something more useful, nor is that straightway referred to faith which is inspired and revealed by God to some among the faithful.

2o Qui revelationi et inspirationi, de qua hic loquitur S. Cyprianus resistit, juxta ipsum rationi resistit, seu a ratione superatur. Revelatio ergo latiori sensu hic a Cypriano usurpatur, prout quaslibet veritates naturales complectitur quas Deus revelat et inspirat.

2nd, He who resists the revelation and inspiration whereof St. Cyprian here speaks, according to him resists reason, or "is overcome by reason." Revelation therefore is here used by Cyprian in a wider sense, according as it embraces any natural truths whatsoever which God reveals and inspires.

3o S. Cyprianus in Epistola ad Quintum nitide ostendit quo sensu dixerit a Deo revelatum, quod adversus Stephanum tuebatur his verbis: « Quae aliquando a fratribus et collegis nostris utiliter et salubriter suggeruntur, si sint vera et legitima, ipsa potius nostra ducamus, cui rei Paulus quoque prospiciens in epistola sua posuit dicens: « Prophetae autem duo aut tres loquantur et caeteri examinent, si autem alii revelatum fuerit sedenti, ille prior taceat: » qua in parte docuit et ostendit multa singulis in melius revelari et debere unumquemque non pro eo, quod semel imbiberat et tenebat pertinaciter congredi, sed si quid melius et utilius exstiterit, libenter amplecti; non enim vincimur quando nobis offeruntur meliora. » Quis non videat opinionem de rebaptizandis haereticis a Cypriano iis ascribi, quae Deus quibusdam inspirat et revelat ad majorem Ecclesiae utilitatem? Quae profecto revelatio unam respicit Ecclesiae oeconomiam, ac disciplinam, unde nedum faveat adversariis, assertionem nostram confirmat, ut supra vidimus.

3rd, St. Cyprian in the Letter to Quintus clearly shows in what sense he said that what he defended against Stephen was revealed by God, in these words: "What things are at times usefully and wholesomely suggested by our brethren and colleagues, if they be true and legitimate, let us rather count our own; providing for which matter Paul also set down in his epistle, saying: 'Now let two or three prophets speak, and let the rest examine; but if anything be revealed to another sitting by, let the first hold his peace' (1 Cor. 14:29–30); in which place he taught and showed that many things are revealed to individuals for the better, and that each one ought not to contend obstinately for that which he had once imbibed and held, but if anything better and more useful has appeared, gladly to embrace it; for we are not overcome when better things are offered to us." Who does not see that the opinion concerning rebaptizing heretics is ascribed by Cyprian to those things which God inspires and reveals to some for the greater utility of the Church? Which revelation assuredly regards the economy and discipline of the Church alone, whence so far from favouring our adversaries, it confirms our assertion, as we saw above.

4o Totne fidei dogmata crediderit S. Cyprianus quae in tractatu de Bono Patientiae scripserat? Haec tamen a Deo inspirata esse pronuntiat: « Propter hoc, inquit in Epist. ad Jubaian., etiam libellum de Bono Patientiae quantum valuit nostra mediocritas permittente Domino et inspirante conscripsimus; » non omnia ergo quae a Cypriano dicuntur

4th, Did St. Cyprian believe all the things which he had written in the treatise On the Good of Patience to be so many dogmas of faith? Yet he pronounces that these were inspired by God: "On this account," says he in the Letter to Jubaianus, "we also wrote the booklet On the Good of Patience so far as our mediocrity was able, with the Lord permitting and inspiring"; not all things therefore which are said by Cyprian

Editors' notes and page, col. 1393

Page

running head: 1393 PARS II. — RECENTIORU
marginal letters: A (in col. 1394); B (in col. 1394); C (in col. 1394); D (in col. 1394)
old-edition numerals: 1339 before Resp.
other: editors' matter: tione enim... dicuntur (entire column); word split from preceding column: tione (praesumptione)

PL 3:1394

inspirata sive revelata a Deo fidem respiciunt; revelatio igitur sive inspiratio divina aliquando a S. Cypriano fusiori sumitur significatu, non ergo tandem subtiliter inventa, sed a Cypriano ipso suppeditata nostra responsio.

to be inspired or revealed by God regard faith; divine revelation or inspiration is therefore at times taken by St. Cyprian in a broader signification, and consequently our answer is not subtly invented, but supplied by Cyprian himself.

Objici. IV. De fide credebat S. Doctor eos baptizare non posse quibus a Christo concessa non erat baptizandi potestas; at haereticis talem a Christo datam fuisse potestatem negabat Cyprianus: « Manifestum est, inquit in Epist. ad Jubaian., ubi et per quos et remissa peccatorum dari possit quae in baptismo scilicet datur: nam Petro primum Dominus super quem aedificavit Ecclesiam unde et unitatis originem instituit et ostendit, potestatem istam dedit, ut id solveretur in coelis quod ille solvisset in terris: et post resurrectionem quoque ad apostolos loquitur dicens: Sicut misit me Pater, et ego mitto ves; hoc cum dixisset inspiraait et ait illis: Accipite Spiritum sanctum; si cujus remiseritis peccata, remittuntur illi; si cujus tenueritis, tenebuntur; unde intelligimus non nisi in Ecclesia praepositis et in Evangelica lege ac Dominica ordinatione fundatis licere baptizare et remissam peccatorum dare, foris autem nec ligari aliquid posse nec solvi ubi non sit qui aut ligare possit aliquid aut solvere. » Ergo.

Objection IV. The holy Doctor believed it to be of faith that those cannot baptize to whom the power of baptizing had not been granted by Christ; now Cyprian denied that such power had been given by Christ to heretics: "It is manifest," says he in the Letter to Jubaianus, "where and through whom the remission of sins can be given, which namely is given in baptism: for first to Peter, upon whom He built the Church, and whence He instituted and showed the origin of unity, the Lord gave that power, that that should be loosed in heaven which he had loosed on earth; and after the resurrection also He speaks to the apostles, saying: As the Father has sent Me, I also send you; when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them: Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven him; whose you shall retain, they shall be retained (John 20:21–23); whence we understand that it is lawful for none save the prelates set in the Church and founded in the Evangelical law and the ordinance of the Lord to baptize and to give the remission of sins, whereas outside nothing can be either bound or loosed, where there is no one who can either bind or loose anything." Therefore.

Respond. Distinguo minorem. Juxta Cyprianum haereticis data a Christo non erat baptizandi potestas; atque id variis ratiociniis utcunque ostendere conabatur: concedo; et id tanquam de fide, tanquam certum tradebat: nego minor. Itaque ad probandam suam de haereticis rebaptizandis sententiam variis illationibus utcunque ostendere conatur S. Doctor haereticis concessam a Christo non esse baptizandi potestatem: in textu enim objectato, ex eo quod Christus Petro et apostolis ligandi et solvendi potestatem dederit, infert solis Ecclssiae praepositis potestatem remittendi peccata a Christo fuisse concessam. Inde colligit baptizandi facultatem haereticis minime competere, ex quo tandem concludit, invalide quia illicite, ab haereticis baptizari.

Answer. I distinguish the minor: According to Cyprian the power of baptizing had not been given by Christ to heretics, and he endeavoured in some way to show this by various reasonings, I grant; and he handed this down as of faith, as certain, I deny the minor. And so, to prove his opinion concerning rebaptizing heretics, the holy Doctor endeavours by various inferences to show in some way that the power of baptizing has not been granted by Christ to heretics: for in the text objected, from the fact that Christ gave to Peter and the apostles the power of binding and loosing, he infers that the power of remitting sins was granted by Christ to the prelates of the Church alone. Thence he gathers that the faculty of baptizing by no means belongs to heretics, from which he finally concludes that heretics baptize invalidly because illicitly.

Verum quod ex Scripturis judicatur aliquo modo deduci posse, crediturne ad fidem pertinere? Si ad fidem revocantur quae a Deo sunt immediate revelata, numquid et ea quae ex revelatis utcunque variis ratiociniis inferri posse arbitrantur? Quando Cyprianus plura Scripturae loca afferebat ad ea probanda, quae omnium judicio versatilem spectabant disciplinam, ut supra vidimus, quod tuebatur, ex iis quae citabat Scripturae locis inferri posse profecto existimabat, ideone illud fidei devovebat? Ergo licet S. Cyprianus ex Scripturis inferri posse crediderit haereticis concessam a Christo non fuisse baptizandi potestatem, non ideo censuit de fide esse eos talem non habere potestatem.

Yet is that which is judged capable of being deduced in some way from the Scriptures believed to pertain to faith? If those things which have been immediately revealed by God are referred to faith, are those things also which are supposed capable of being inferred in some way by various reasonings from the things revealed? When Cyprian brought forward several passages of Scripture for proving those things which in the judgement of all regarded changeable discipline, as we saw above, he assuredly thought that what he defended could be inferred from those passages of Scripture which he cited; did he on that account assign it to faith? Therefore, although St. Cyprian believed that it could be inferred from the Scriptures that the power of baptizing had not been granted by Christ to heretics, he did not on that account judge it to be of faith that they do not have such power.

Addo Cyprianum nec censuisse id certo et necessario ex Scripturis inferri posse; nam 1o Si existimasset ex Scripturis necessario inferri solis Ecclesiae praepositis datam esse a Christo baptizandi potestatem, hanc laicis catholicis sicut et haereticis.

I add that Cyprian did not even judge that this could be certainly and necessarily inferred from the Scriptures; for 1st, If he had thought that it is necessarily inferred from the Scriptures that the power of baptizing was given by Christ to the prelates of the Church alone, he would have denied this power to Catholic laymen just as to heretics;

Editors' notes and page, col. 1394

Page

running head: RECENTIORUM EXCURSUS. 1394
marginal letters: A inspirata sive revelata; B loquitur dicens: Sicut; C illationibus utcunque ostendere; D probanda, quae omnium
old-edition numerals: 1340 before Objici.
other: period after haereticis. at end of column is a misprint; editors' matter: inspirata sive... haereticis. (entire column)
misprints kept as printed: inspiraait (for inspiravit); Ecclssiae (for Ecclesiae, before praepositis potestatem remittendi); ves (for vos, in the italic quotation of John 20:21)

PL 3:1395

denegasset; illi enim, aeque ac isti non sunt Ecclesiae praepositi: attamen nullibi apud ipsum hanc potestatem laicis Catholicis denegatam invenies; unde perverse admodum hic error Cypriano a Catholicis affingeretur.

for the former, equally as the latter, are not prelates of the Church: yet nowhere in him will you find this power denied to Catholic laymen; whence very perversely would this error be fastened upon Cyprian by Catholics.

2o Si existimasset ex Scripturis certo colligi nullum esse baptisma ab haereticis collatum, pro certo habuisset infantes cum solo haereticorum baptismo defunctos salutem adeptos non fuisse, eadem enim certitudine creditur hos infantes salutem fuisse adeptos, qua creditur eos valide fuisse baptizatos; attamen S. Cyprianus non desperat de illorum salute, qui in praeteritum cum solo haereticorum baptismo obierant, inter quos plures exstitisse infantes nullus inficiabitur.

2nd, If he had thought that it is certainly gathered from the Scriptures that baptism conferred by heretics is null, he would have held for certain that infants deceased with only the baptism of heretics had not obtained salvation, for with the same certitude is it believed that these infants obtained salvation wherewith it is believed that they were validly baptized; yet St. Cyprian does not despair of the salvation of those who in the past had died with only the baptism of heretics, among whom no one will deny that there were many infants.

3o Si ex Scripturis certo inferri credebat eos qui ab haereticis tincti fuerant, reipsa minime fuisse baptizatos, quomodo zelus, quo pro salute hominum ardebat passus fuisset, ut cuilibet episcopo liberam eos non tingendi sineret facultatem? Credidissetne in necessariis tutiorem partem eligendam esse? Probabilia ergo, non certa Cypriano ipsi visa sunt, quae ex Scripturis ad suam sententiam et praxim firmandam depromebat argumenta; unde contra propositam objectionem concludo S. Cyprianum ad fidem minime revocasse quod e Scripturis variis ratiociniis inferri posse, nec quidem certo et necessario putabat.

3rd, If he believed that it was certainly inferred from the Scriptures that those who had been dipped by heretics had in reality by no means been baptized, how would the zeal wherewith he burned for the salvation of men have suffered him to leave to every bishop the free faculty of not dipping them? Would he not have believed that in necessary things the safer part must be chosen? Probable therefore, not certain, seemed to Cyprian himself the arguments which he drew from the Scriptures for confirming his opinion and practice; whence against the proposed objection I conclude that St. Cyprian by no means referred to faith what he thought could be inferred from the Scriptures by various reasonings, and not even certainly and necessarily.

Objic. V. S. Cypriunus suam de haereticis rebaptizandis sententiam vocat Ecclesiae Catholicae fidem ac veritatem: « Quare, inquit in Epist. ad Jubaian., Ecclesiae Cntholicae fidem ac veritatem, frater carissime, et tenere debemus firmiter et docere, et per omnia evangelica et apostolica praecepta rationem divinae dispensationis atque unitatis ostendere. » Ergo eam merae disciplinae non adscripsit.

Objection V. St. Cyprian calls his opinion concerning rebaptizing heretics the faith and truth of the Catholic Church: "Wherefore," says he in the Letter to Jubaianus, "we ought both firmly to hold and to teach the faith and truth of the Catholic Church, dearest brother, and through all the evangelical and apostolic precepts to show the reason of the divine dispensation and unity." Therefore he did not ascribe it to mere discipline.

Resp. Nego antecedens: qui enim citata Cypriani verba ad ipsius de rebaptizandis haereticis sententiam referunt, vel Cypriani scripta nusquam legerunt, ab uno vel altero auctore ea exscripsisse contenti, vel credulis imponere volunt: en Cypriani textus integer, prolixus quidem, at veritatem quaerentibus non onerosus: « Quam vanum est porro et perversum ut cum ipsi haeretici repudiato et relicto vel errore vel scelere in quo prius fuerant, agnoscant Ecclesiae veritatem, nos veritatis ejusdem jura et sacramentum mutilemus, et venientibus ac poenitentibus dicamus eos remissionem peccatorum consecutos esse, quando illi se peccasse et propter hoc ad Ecclesiae indulgentiam venire fateantur? Quare Ecclesiae catholicae fidem ac veritatem, frater carissime, et tenere debemus firmiter et docere, et per omnia evangelica et apostolica praecepta rationem divinae dispensationis atque unitatis ostendere. Numquid potest vis baptismi esse major aut potior, quam confessio, quam passio, ut quis coram hominibus Christum confiteatur et sanguine suo baptizetur? Et tamen neque hoc baptisma haereticis prodest, quamvis Christum confessi

Answer. I deny the antecedent: for those who refer the cited words of Cyprian to his opinion concerning rebaptizing heretics either have never read the writings of Cyprian, content to have copied them out from one or another author, or wish to impose upon the credulous: behold the entire text of Cyprian, prolix indeed, yet not burdensome to those who seek the truth: "Now how vain and perverse it is that when the heretics themselves, having repudiated and forsaken either the error or the wickedness wherein they previously were, recognize the truth of the Church, we should mutilate the rights and sacrament of the same truth, and say to those who come and repent that they have obtained the remission of sins, when they confess that they have sinned and on this account come to the indulgence of the Church! Wherefore we ought both firmly to hold and to teach the faith and truth of the Catholic Church, dearest brother, and through all the evangelical and apostolic precepts to show the reason of the divine dispensation and unity. Can the power of baptism be greater or more potent than confession, than passion, that one should confess Christ before men and be baptized with his own blood? And yet neither does this baptism profit heretics, although they have confessed Christ

Editors' notes and page, col. 1395

Page

running head: 1395 DE HAERETICORUM BA
marginal letters: A (in col. 1396); B (in col. 1396); C (in col. 1396); D (in col. 1396)
old-edition numerals: 1341 before 2o
other: editors' matter: denegasset; illi... con- (entire column); word split at end of column: con-
other: the word confessi was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1396

PL 3:1396

et extra Ecclesiam fuerint occisi, nisi si haereticorum patroni et advocati haereticos in falsa confessione Christi interfectos martyres praedicant et contra Apostoli contestationem, qui nihil eos quamvis exustos et occisos dicit posse proficere, gloriam eis et coronam passionis assignant. Quod si haeretico nec baptisma publicae confessionis et sanguinis proficere ad salutem potest, quia salus extra Ecclesiam non est, quanto magis ei nihil proderit, si in latebra et in latronum spelunca adulterae contagione aquae tinctus non tantum peccata antiqua non exposuerit, sed adhuc potius nova et majora cumulaverit. » Vides quaenam sit juxta Cyprianum illa Ecclesiae catholicae fides et veritas firmiter tenenda et docenda, haereticos scilicet peccatorum suorum remissionem in haeresi consequi non posse, nec illis baptisma salutem prodesse, quod nullus inficiatur Catholicus, et in quo certe sita non erat erronea de rebaptizandis haereticis Cypriani sententia; pessime ergo de Cypriano merentur, qui ad ipsius errorem revocant, quod ipse fide certum merito dixit.

and been slain outside the Church, unless the patrons and advocates of heretics proclaim heretics slain in a false confession of Christ to be martyrs, and contrary to the protestation of the Apostle, who says that though burned and slain they can profit nothing (1 Cor. 13:3), assign to them the glory and crown of passion. Now if not even the baptism of public confession and blood can profit a heretic unto salvation, because there is no salvation outside the Church, how much more will it profit him nothing if in a hiding-place and in a den of robbers, dipped with the contagion of adulterous water, he has not only not put off his old sins, but rather has still heaped up new and greater ones!" You see what according to Cyprian is that faith and truth of the Catholic Church which must be firmly held and taught, namely that heretics cannot obtain the remission of their sins in heresy, nor does baptism profit them unto salvation—which no Catholic denies, and wherein certainly the erroneous opinion of Cyprian concerning rebaptizing heretics was not situated; most ill therefore do those deserve of Cyprian who refer to his error what he himself deservedly said was certain by faith.

Objic. VI. Cypriani Epistolam ad Pompeium, ex qua haec decerpunt testimonia, quae fidei et dogmatis quaestionem ore patulo clamare vociferantur: « Si in aliquo nutaverit et vacillaverit veritas, ad originem Dominicam et evangelium et apostolicam traditionem revertamur, et inde surgat actus nostri ratio, unde et ordo et origo surrexit. Traditum est enim nobis quod sit unus Deus, et Christus unus, et una spes, et fides una, et una Ecclesia, et baptisma unum, non nisi in una Ecclesia constitutum, a qua unitate quisquis discesserit cum haereticis necesse est inveniatur, quos dum contra Ecclesiam (Stephanus) vindicat, sacramentum divinae traditionis impugnat.... quae ista obstinatio, quaeve praesumptio humanam traditionem divinae dispositioni anteponere, nec animadvertere indignari et irasci Deum quoties, divina praecepta solvit et praeterit humana traditio. »

Objection VI. They object the Letter of Cyprian to Pompeius, from which they pluck out these testimonies, which they vociferate cry aloud with open mouth a question of faith and dogma: "If in anything the truth has tottered and wavered, let us return to the fountainhead of the Lord and the Gospel and apostolic tradition, and thence let the reason of our action arise, whence both its order and its origin arose. For it has been handed down to us that there is one God, and one Christ, and one hope, and one faith, and one Church, and one baptism, established only in the one Church; from which unity whosoever has departed must needs be found with heretics, whom while (Stephen) upholds against the Church, he impugns the sacrament of divine tradition... what obstinacy is that, or what presumption, to prefer human tradition to the divine disposition, and not to notice that God is indignant and angry as often as human tradition looses and passes over the divine precepts!"

Resp. Quorsum istae adversariorum tenebrae? Pulverem ab oculis excutiant et videant aliquando in Cypriani textibus, quod vident omnes, traditum scilicet a Cypriano dici, unum esse baptisma non nisi in una Ecclesia constitutum, quod verum est, quod omnes tenent Catholici, qui ex hac traditione probant haereticis baptizare non licere; at hic traditumne asserit S. Doctor, baptisma haereticorum validum non esse, vel quod simile? Hoc profecto nemo legit, nemo videt, nec videbunt ipsi adversarii res propius inspicientes. At, inquiunt, unum baptisma in una Ecclesia ita constitutum asserebat S. Doctor, ut haereticos nec licite nec valide baptizare posse argueret. Hoc fateor de quo nullatenus agitur; non enim hic quaeritur, an Cyprianus existimaverit haereticos non posse valide baptizare; nec quaeritur, an hoc ex pluribus Scripturae textibus eruere tentaverit, sed quaeritur utrum de fide crediderit, utrum a Deo traditum dixerit baptisma ita unum

Answer. To what purpose are those darknesses of our adversaries? Let them shake the dust from their eyes and see at length in the texts of Cyprian what all see, namely that it is said by Cyprian to have been handed down that there is one baptism established only in the one Church—which is true, which all Catholics hold, who from this tradition prove that it is not lawful for heretics to baptize; yet does the holy Doctor here assert that it has been handed down that the baptism of heretics is not valid, or anything similar? This assuredly no one reads, no one sees, nor will our adversaries themselves see it if they inspect the matters more closely. Yet, say they, the holy Doctor asserted that one baptism was so established in the one Church that he argued that heretics could baptize neither licitly nor validly. This I confess, concerning which there is no question at all; for it is not here asked whether Cyprian thought that heretics cannot validly baptize; nor is it asked whether he attempted to draw this out from several texts of Scripture; but it is asked whether he believed it to be of faith, whether he said that it was handed down by God that baptism is so one

Editors' notes and page, col. 1396

Page

running head: TICORUM BAPTISMATE. 1396
marginal letters: A fessi et extra; B licet peccatorum suorum; C unum, non nisi; D haereticis baptizare non
old-edition numerals: 1342 before baptisma
other: editors' matter: fessi et... unum (entire column); word split from preceding column: fessi (confessi)

PL 3:1397

in Ecclesia esse, ut haeretici nec licite nec valide baptizare potuerint. Hoc porro nunquam probabitur; hoc nullibi apud Cyprianum legetur; imo contrarium vel ex hacmet epistola objectata demonstratur.

in the Church that heretics could baptize neither licitly nor validly. Now this will never be proved; this will nowhere be read in Cyprian; nay, the contrary is demonstrated even from this very letter which is objected.

Cum enim Stephanus dixisset: « Quod ab apostolis accepimus tenemus, » quid Cyprianus ad hanc apostolorum auctoritatem? « Apostoli, respondet, haereticos Antichristos nominarunt, eos esse vitandos pronuntiarunt, nullibi apud apostolos praeceptum invenitur ut haereticis tantum manus in poenitentiam imponantur; » eos nimirum intra limites se continet ut ostendat Stephanum absque titulo apostolica traditione gloriari, et quid circa ejusmodi baptismum apostoli senserint latere. Porro si S. Cyprianus suam sententiam ab apostolis traditam existimasset, hanc traditionem profecto hic appellasset, reponere certe non omisisset pessima omnino fide apostolicam auctoritatem a Stephano laudari, cum sibi ipsi omnino faveret; opportunior ipsi nulla fuit occasio peremptoriam istam allegandi traditionem, qua adversarii penitus retunderentur. Id tamen non praestitit Cyprianus, non ergo censuit ab apostolis traditum baptisma haereticorum invalidum esse.

For when Stephen had said: "What we have received from the apostles we hold," what says Cyprian to this authority of the apostles? "The apostles," he replies, "named heretics Antichrists, they pronounced that they must be shunned; nowhere in the apostles is a precept found that hands only should be laid upon heretics unto penance"; he keeps himself namely within those limits in order to show that Stephen boasts of apostolic tradition without title, and that what the apostles thought concerning baptism of that sort lies hidden. Now if St. Cyprian had thought that his opinion was handed down by the apostles, he would assuredly have appealed to this tradition here, he would certainly not have omitted to reply that apostolic authority was praised by Stephen in the worst possible faith, seeing that it altogether favoured himself; he had no more seasonable occasion of alleging that peremptory tradition whereby his adversaries would be utterly beaten back. Yet Cyprian did not do this; he did not therefore judge it handed down by the apostles that the baptism of heretics is invalid.

Opponit quidem S. Doctor Stephani traditioni, quam humanam appellabat, evangelicam et divinam, quam anteponendam esse dicit dispositionem, non quasi in hac contineretur, aut manifestaretur sua de rebaptizandis haereticis sententia; contrarium enim vel ex hacmet epistola modo evincebamus, sed quia ex hac humanis ratiociniis, sive ut loquitur Facundus Hermian., humana argumentatione suam sententiam eruere contendebat: Quid enim ostendit juxta Cyprianum evangelica haec, et divina dispositio, quam hic Stephano opponit? ostenditne nullum esse haereticorum baptisma? Haereticos valide baptizare non posse? Minime; hoc nec ibi, nec alibi a Cypriano asseritur. Quid ergo? Ostendit haereticos esse Antichristos, esse vitandos, ostendit baptismi unitatem; en illa divina dispositio, quam Cyprianus Stephano opponit, plures scilicet evangelicas opponit veritates, ex quibus suam sententiam variis argumentis eruere laborabat. Porro quod ex eo, quod Cyprianus ex pluribus Scripturae textibus suam de rebaptizandis haereticis sententiam erui posse crediderit, concludendum non est ipsum agi de fide in hac quaestione censuisse, ut supra probavimus.

The holy Doctor indeed opposes to the tradition of Stephen, which he called human, the evangelical and divine disposition, which he says must be preferred—not as though his opinion concerning rebaptizing heretics were contained or manifested therein, for we just now proved the contrary even from this very letter, but because from it by human reasonings, or as Facundus of Hermiane speaks, by "human argumentation," he endeavoured to draw out his opinion: for what according to Cyprian does this evangelical and divine disposition show, which he here opposes to Stephen? Does it show that the baptism of heretics is null? That heretics cannot validly baptize? By no means; this is asserted by Cyprian neither there nor elsewhere. What then? It shows "that heretics are Antichrists, that they must be shunned," it shows "the unity of baptism"; behold that divine disposition which Cyprian opposes to Stephen—namely he opposes several evangelical truths, from which he laboured by various arguments to draw out his opinion. Now from the fact that Cyprian believed that his opinion concerning rebaptizing heretics could be drawn out from several texts of Scripture, it must not be concluded that he judged it to be a question of faith in this matter, as we proved above.

Non moror quod in hac epistola S. Cyprianus S. Stephanum erroris accuset; non omnis enim error militat contra fidem, et revera Stephanus erroris quidem arguitur, nunquam tamen erroris contra fidem; in eo autem errabat Stephanus in mente Cypriani, quod sententiam de rebaptizandis

I do not linger over the fact that in this letter St. Cyprian accuses St. Stephen of error; for not every error militates against faith, and in truth Stephen is indeed convicted of error, yet never of error against faith; now Stephen erred in this, in the mind of Cyprian, that he did not judge the opinion concerning rebaptizing

Editors' notes and page, col. 1397

Footnotes

(4) Vide Illust. de Saleon Ruth. episc. in Doc. Past. de Eccles. decis. auctoritate, part. I, pag. 222 et seq.; Thomassin, dissert. 2 de Bapt. Haeret., eag. 48; seu, tract. de Legibus, quaest. 7, art. 3, pag. 252: Juenin de Sacram., quaest. 6, cap. 2 art. 3, § 3, pag. 98 et 92; Launoium, epist. 15, ad Bevilaq., pag. 287, et alios permultos.

See the most illustrious de Saléon, bishop of Rodez, in his Pastoral Instruction on the Authority of the Church's Decisions, part 1, page 222 and following; Thomassin, Dissertation 2 on the Baptism of Heretics, page ("eag." as printed) 48, or his treatise On Laws, question 7, article 3, page 252; Juenin, On the Sacraments, question 6, chapter 2, article 3, § 3, pages 98 and 92; Launoy, letter 15, to Bevilacqua, page 287; and very many others.

(printed under page 750)

Page

running head: 1397 PARS II. — RECENTIORU
marginal letters: A (in col. 1398); B (in col. 1398); C (in col. 1398); D (in col. 1398)
old-edition numerals: 1343 after pronuntiarunt,
other: editors' matter: in Ecclesia... rebaptizandis (entire column)

PL 3:1398

haereticis meliorem et utiliorem, ut ait Cyprianus in Epist. ad Quintum, non judicaret, ideoque eam rejiciendam vellet.

heretics "better and more useful," as Cyprian says in the Letter to Quintus, and therefore wished it to be rejected.

Haec de Cypriani ad Pompeium epistola sufficiant: « Illa enim (verbis utor Augustini) quae in Stephanum irritatus effudit retractare nolo, quia et non opus, et ea praeterire melius est (detestans, cum Vincentior Lirin. optimo Gallo) illorum nequitiam qui sancti viri (Cypriani) memoriam, tanquam sopitos jam cineres profana manu ventilant, et quae silentio sepeliri oportebat, rediviva opinione diffamant. »

Let these things suffice concerning the Letter of Cyprian to Pompeius: "For those things (I use the words of Augustine) which when irritated he poured forth against Stephen I am unwilling to handle again, because there is no need either, and it is better to pass them over, detesting (with Vincent of Lérins, that best Gaul) the wickedness of those who with profane hand fan the memory of the holy man (Cyprian) like ashes now lulled to rest, and noise abroad with revived opinion the things which ought to have been buried in silence."

Objic, tandem probabile non est S. Cyprianum merae devovisse disciplinae controversiam, in qua de validitate aut invaliditate baptismi agebatur, nec potest concipi, quomodo ita sentire potuerit vir perspicacia maxime praeditus, ac eruditione clarissimus.

Objection VII. Finally, they object that it is not probable that St. Cyprian assigned to mere discipline a controversy wherein it was a question of the validity or invalidity of baptism, nor can it be conceived how a man most highly endowed with perspicacity and most illustrious in learning could have thought thus.

Respond. Tot et tantis nititur assertio nostra argumentis, ut eam probabilitate carere solus ille contendat, qui palpet in meridie. Enimvero ut jure meritoque dicatur Cyprianum existimasse hanc fuisse merae disciplinae controversiam, numquid necesse est modum investigare, detegere, vindicare, quo talem judicavit? Ignoretur modus, si placet, lateant nos principia quibus ad ita judicandum moveretur S. Doctor, dummodo hac in controversia ea protulit quae non nisi merae disciplinae quaestionem exhibeant; dummodo taliter in hoc negotio se gesserit, qualiter in negotio fidem nunquam se gessisset, certa et immota remanebit veritas assertionis nostrae.

Answer. Our assertion rests upon so many and so great arguments that he alone can contend that it lacks probability who gropes at midday. For in truth, in order that it may rightly and deservedly be said that Cyprian thought that this was a controversy of mere discipline, is it necessary to investigate, uncover, and vindicate the manner in which he judged it such? Let the manner be unknown, if you please, let the principles whereby the holy Doctor was moved to judge thus lie hidden from us; provided only that in this controversy he put forward those things which exhibit none save a question of mere discipline, provided only that he bore himself in this business in such wise as he would never have borne himself in a business of faith, the truth of our assertion will remain certain and unshaken.

Eruditum Cyprianum, imo fulgentissimum Ecclesiae lumen, et doctorem conspicuum quis neget? At eruditum et puto Basilium, eruditum et Athanasium, iis tamen merae disciplinae controversiam hanc visam fuisse, et ipsi passim docent Galli scriptores ac theologi.

Who would deny that Cyprian was learned, nay, a most shining light of the Church and a conspicuous doctor? Yet I think Basil also was learned, and Athanasius learned, and nevertheless that this controversy seemed to them one of mere discipline, the French writers and theologians themselves everywhere teach.

Caeterum non immerito conjicitur eam fuisse Cypriani sententiam quod baptismi haereticorum validitas penderet ab usibus, consuetudinibus et dispositionibus privatarum Ecclesiarum, quae haereticos ad baptizandum inhabiles reddere possent, Nam, 1o Cyprianus, ut vidimus, suis permisit collegis de rebaptizatione varie sentire, nec in alios quam in Stephanum videtur insurgere, eo quod Africanam etiam Ecclesiam Romanae consuetudini mancipare vellet: porro liberam istam rebaptizandi vel non rebaptizandi facultatem pro suo erga salutem animarum studio minime permisisset, si baptismum ab haereticis collatum nullibi validum fuisse putasset. Illud ergo necesse est ut validum in quibusdam ecclesiis, irritum autem in aliis existimaverit: cujus quidem discriminis causa non

For the rest, not undeservedly is it conjectured that the opinion of Cyprian was that the validity of the baptism of heretics depended upon the usages, customs, and dispositions of particular Churches, which could render heretics incapable of baptizing. For, 1st, Cyprian, as we have seen, permitted his colleagues to think variously concerning rebaptism, nor does he seem to rise up against any others than Stephen, because he wished to subject the African Church also to the Roman custom: now in accordance with his zeal towards the salvation of souls he would by no means have permitted that free faculty of rebaptizing or not rebaptizing, if he had thought that baptism conferred by heretics was nowhere valid. It is necessary therefore that he thought it valid in certain churches, and void in others: the cause of which difference indeed

Editors' notes and page, col. 1398

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: ptores ac theologi› · call in col 1398 [the note itself is numbered (4) at the foot, as printed]

(printed under page 750)

Page

running head: RECENTIORUM EXCURSUS. 1398
marginal letters: A haereticis meliorem et; B potest concipi, quomodo; C quam se gessisset,; D quam in Stephanum
old-edition numerals: 1344 before maxime
other: editors' matter: haereticis meliorem... non (entire column)

PL 3:1399

aliunde repeti posse videtur, quam ex ratione mox allata.

does not seem capable of being traced from elsewhere than from the reason just alleged.

2o Magno inquirenti de Clinicorum tinctione respondet S. Cyprianus validum esse baptismum Clinicis collatum; attamen vult in hac ipsa epist. 69, ad Magnum, Clinicos iterum baptizari apud eos qui hujus baptismi validitatem denegabant: « Si aliquis, inquit, existimat eos Clinicos nihil consecutos, non decipiantur, ut si incommodum languoris evaserint et convaluerint, baptizentur. » Nullum ergo censebat S. Doctor baptisma Clinicis datum apud eos qui talis baptismi validitatem denegabant, alioquin Clinicos ab illis rebaptizari non permisisset: noverat enim, imo saepius docuerat validum baptisma iterari non posse, quod ergo validum penes se credebat baptismum, invalidum apud alios existimabat.

2nd, To Magnus inquiring concerning the dipping of Clinics St. Cyprian replies that baptism conferred upon Clinics is valid; yet in this very Letter 69, To Magnus, he wishes Clinics to be baptized a second time among those who denied the validity of this baptism: "If anyone," says he, "thinks that those Clinics have obtained nothing, let them not be deceived, so that if they have escaped the trouble of their sickness and grown strong, they may be baptized." The holy Doctor therefore judged that the baptism given to Clinics was null among those who denied the validity of such baptism, otherwise he would not have permitted Clinics to be rebaptized by them: for he knew, nay, he had quite often taught that a valid baptism cannot be repeated; the baptism therefore which he believed valid with himself, he thought invalid among others.

Porro ita de baptismo sentire non poterat, quin arbitraretur hanc privatis ecclesiis inesse potestatem, ut apponere possent impedimenta, quibus nullum efficeretur baptisma, ita ut valide administraretur, ubi talia apposita non essent impedimenta, invalide autem ubi apposita fuissent.

Now he could not think thus concerning baptism without supposing that this power was in particular churches, that they could set up impediments whereby baptism was rendered null, so that it was validly administered where such impediments had not been set up, and invalidly where they had been set up.

3o Revera qui antiquitus rebaptizationi haereticorum favebant a diversis ecclesiarum dispositionibus, seu consuetudinibus, nanciscebantur haereticos rebaptizandi necessitatem, et consequenter baptismi validitatem. « Quod igitur, inquit S. Basilius in epist. canon. prima ad Amphilochium, ad Catharos pertinet et prius dictum est et recte admonuisti unius cujusque regionis morem sequi oportere, quod ii qui tunc de illis statuerunt in varias de ipsorum baptismate sententias abierint... quoniam nonnullis Asiaticis omnino visum est eorum baptisma pluribus consulendi causa suscipiendum esse suscipiatur. » Et paulo post: « Existimo itaque quoniam nihil de illis (Encraticis haereticis) aperte dictum est eorum baptisma a nobis rejiciendum esse, ac si quis ab eis acceperit accedentem ad Ecclesiam baptizandum; quod si hoc generali oeconomiae impedimento erit, rursus consuetudine utendum est, et sequi oportet Patres, qui quae ad nos pertinet dispensaverunt. » Ibi perspicis S. Basilium a diversarum regionum moribus, et a diversis episcoporum statutis repetere necessitatem haereticos rebaptizandi vel non rebaptizandi.

3rd, In truth those who of old favoured the rebaptism of heretics derived the necessity of rebaptizing heretics, and consequently the validity of baptism, from the diverse dispositions or customs of the churches. "What therefore," says St. Basil in the first canonical letter To Amphilochius, "pertains to the Cathari has both been said before, and you have rightly admonished that it behooves us to follow the custom of each region, because those who at that time determined concerning them went off into various opinions concerning their baptism... since to some Asiatics it has altogether seemed good for the sake of consulting the interest of many that their baptism should be received, let it be received." And a little after: "I think therefore, since nothing has been openly said concerning them (the Encratite heretics), that their baptism ought to be rejected by us, and if anyone has received it from them, that when he approaches the Church he must be baptized; but if this shall be an impediment to the general economy, we must again use custom, and it behooves us to follow the Fathers who have dispensed the things which pertain to us." There you perceive that St. Basil traces the necessity of rebaptizing or not rebaptizing heretics from the customs of diverse regions, and from the diverse statutes of bishops.

Ita sentiebat et Amphilochius, qui in Catharorum baptismo iterando vel non iterando diversis ecclesiarum moribus serviendum esse censebat, ut testatur Basilius iis verbis modo citatis: « Quod igitur ad Catharos pertinet et prius dictum est, et recte admonuisti uniuscujusque regionis morem sequi oportere, quod ii qui tunc de illis statuerunt in varias de ipsorum baptismate sententias abierint. »

Thus thought Amphilochius also, who judged that in repeating or not repeating the baptism of the Cathari one must comply with the diverse customs of the churches, as Basil testifies in those words just cited: "What therefore pertains to the Cathari has both been said before, and you have rightly admonished that it behooves us to follow the custom of each region, because those who at that time determined concerning them went off into various opinions concerning their baptism."

Ita Firmilianus, qui rebaptizationem iis assimilat quae a variis regionum consuetudinibus robur accipiunt: « Circa celebrandos inquit in sua ad Cypr. epistola, inter Cyprianicas 75, dies Paschae et circa multa alia divinae rei sacramenta, videat quis esse

Thus Firmilian, who assimilates rebaptism to those things which receive their force from the varied customs of regions: "Concerning celebrating the days of Easter," says he in his letter to Cyprian, 75 among the Cyprianic letters, "and concerning many other sacraments of divine things, one may see that there are

Editors' notes and page, col. 1399

Page

running head: 1399 DE HAERETICORUM BA
marginal letters: A (in col. 1400); B (in col. 1400); C (in col. 1400); D (in col. 1400)
old-edition numerals: 1345 before ut
other: editors' matter: aliunde repeti... esse (entire column)

PL 3:1400

apud illos (Romanos) Aliquas diversitates, nec observari illic omnia aequaliter, quae Hierosolymis observantur secundum quod in caeteris quoque plurimis provinciis multa pro locorum et nominum diversitate variantur, nec tamen propter hoc ab Ecclesiae catholicae pace atque unitate aliquando discessum est, quod nunc Stephanus ausus est facere, rumpens adversus vos pacem, quam semper antecessores ejus vobiscum custodierunt. »

among them (the Romans) some diversities, and that not all things are observed there equally which are observed at Jerusalem, according as in very many other provinces also many things are varied according to the diversity of places and names, and yet on this account there has never been a departure from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church, which Stephen has now dared to do, breaking against you the peace which his predecessors always guarded with you."

Haec nos ad cumulum de Cypriano investiganda doctis, et confirmanda, vel etiam si placuerit oppugnanda proponimus. Utcumque sit, immotum semper maneat et inconcussum quod a Gallis universim asseritur, Cyprianum videlicet totam hanc de baptismo haereticorum controversiam ad meram disciplinam revocasse.

These things concerning Cyprian we propose by way of addition to the learned to be investigated, and confirmed, or even, if it shall please them, impugned. Howsoever it be, let that always remain unshaken and unmoved which is universally asserted by the French, namely that Cyprian referred this whole controversy concerning the baptism of heretics to mere discipline.

CAPUT II.

CHAPTER II.

Afferuntur momenta, quibus evincitur S. Cyprianum probe novisse quam S. Stephanus Rom. pontifex vindicabat consuetudinem, universalem tunc temporis fuisse Ecclesiae consuetudinem, ac ab omnibus episcopis antiquitus servatam fuisse.

Considerations are brought forward whereby it is proved that St. Cyprian knew well that the custom which St. Stephen the Roman pontiff vindicated was at that time the universal custom of the Church, and had of old been kept by all bishops.

1. Rebaptizanti Cypriano opponebatur Ecclesiae consuetudo, qua haeretici ex S. Cypriano ad Ecclesiam venientes sine novo baptismo recipiebantur; hanc porro Ecclesiae consuetudinem nunquam diffitetur, semper agnoscit S. Doctor: id unum contendit eam rationi subjiciendam esse, eam praescribere minime debere, ac quasi vetustum errorem derelinquendam esse; non ignorabat ergo eam sibi adversari. « Frustra, aiebat Cyprianus Jubaiano scribens, quidam qui ratione vincuntur consuetudinem nobis opponunt, quasi consuetudo major sit veritate,... non tamen quia aliquando erratum est ideo semper errandum. » Et in Epist. ad Quintum: « Non est autem de consuetudine praescribendum, sed ratione vincendum. Loquitur de consuetudine haereticos non rebaptizandi. » Et in Epist. ad Pompeium: « Consuetudo sine veritate vetustas erroris est, propter quod, relicto errore, sequamur veritatem. »

1. To Cyprian rebaptizing there was opposed the custom of the Church, whereby, according to St. Cyprian, heretics coming to the Church were received without a new baptism; now this custom of the Church the holy Doctor never denies, and always recognizes: this one thing he contends, that it must be subjected to reason, that it ought by no means to prescribe, and that it must be forsaken as an ancient error; he was not ignorant therefore that it was opposed to him. "In vain," said Cyprian writing to Jubaianus, "do some who are overcome by reason oppose custom to us, as though custom were greater than truth... yet not because men have once erred must they therefore always err." And in the Letter to Quintus: "Now one must not prescribe from custom, but overcome by reason." (He speaks of the custom of not rebaptizing heretics.) And in the Letter to Pompeius: "Custom without truth is the antiquity of error, on which account, forsaking error, let us follow the truth."

Nec dicas S. Cyprianum ibi loqui de consuetudine alicujus ecclesiae particularis, Romanae videlicet, vel alterius, quam sibi adversari ultro fateretur, non autem de consuetudine universalis Ecclesiae: nam 1o Cyprianus exsistentem eam fatetur consuetudinem, quae ipsi opponebatur; atqui opponebatur consuetudo non quibusdam peculiaris, sed universalis Ecclesiae. Audiatur strenuus ille traditionum Ecclesiae defensor episcopus anonymus jam citatus, qui Cyprianum viriliter perstringebat: « In quo genere, » inquit in tractatu qui incipit his verbis: Non debere denuo baptizari, etc., « quaestionis de baptismo haereticorum nulla omnino potuisset controversia aut disceptatio emergere, si unusquisque nostrum, contentus venerabili Ecclesiarum omnium auctoritate nihil innovare gestiret, » Cypriano non exprobrat ipsum alicujus peculiaris Ecclesiae, Romanae nempe, vel alterius auctoritati obaudire nolle, sed ipsum venerabili Ecclesiarum omnium auctoritate

Nor may you say that St. Cyprian there speaks of the custom of some particular church, namely the Roman or another, which he voluntarily confessed to be opposed to him, and not of the custom of the universal Church: for 1st, Cyprian confesses that custom to exist which was opposed to him; but there was opposed to him a custom not peculiar to some, but of the universal Church. Let that strenuous defender of the traditions of the Church be heard, the anonymous bishop already cited, who manfully censured Cyprian: "In which kind of question," says he in the treatise which begins with these words: That they ought not to be baptized again, etc., "concerning the baptism of heretics, no controversy or debate at all could have emerged, if each one of us, content with the venerable authority of all the Churches, desired to innovate nothing." He does not reproach Cyprian with being unwilling to obey the authority of some particular Church, namely the Roman or another, but with being unwilling to be "content with the venerable authority of all the Churches."

Editors' notes and page, col. 1400

Page

running head: TICORUM BAPTISMATE. 1400
marginal letters: A apud illos (Romanos); B plinam revocasse.; C versari. « Frustra, aiebat; D consuetudo non quibusdam
old-edition numerals: 1346 before CAPUT
other: closing guillemet misplaced after rebaptizandi. » instead of vincendum.; editors' matter: apud illos... au- (entire column); word split at end of column: au-
other: the word auctoritate was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1401

PL 3:1401

contentum esse noluisse. Audiatur S. Stephanus R. Pontifex in suo celebri rescripto: « Si quis a quacunque haeresi venerit ad nos, nihil innovetur praeter id quod traditum est. » Non Romanam tantum aut quibusdam peculiarem Cypriano opponebat traditionem, sed indefinitam, ac consequenter universalem. « S. Stephanus, inquit defensor Declarat. cleri Gallic., an 1682, vulgo Bossuetius, episc. Meldensis, urgebat consuetudinem universalem. » « S. Stephanus, inquit Habert doctor Sorbonicus, traditionem et consuetudinem Ecclesiae opposuit S. Cypriano: « Si quis, inquit, » etc. « Ecclesiae traditionem, inquit Grandin, doctor et professor Sorbon., opposuit Stephanus Papa Africanis. » — « De totius Ecclesiae traditione, inquit Henricus a S. Ignatio, S. Stephanus Papa testimonium perhibuit, dum S. Cypriano hac in causa scripsit: Nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum est. » Mitto alios passim Gallos theologos de Stephano idem testantes.

Let St. Stephen the Roman Pontiff be heard in his celebrated rescript: "If anyone comes to us from any heresy whatsoever, let nothing be innovated beyond that which has been handed down." He opposed to Cyprian not the Roman tradition only, or one peculiar to some, but an indefinite, and consequently a universal tradition. "St. Stephen," says the defender of the Declaration of the Gallican Clergy of the year 1682, commonly Bossuet, bishop of Meaux, "urged the universal custom." "St. Stephen," says Habert, doctor of the Sorbonne, "opposed the tradition and custom of the Church to St. Cyprian: 'If anyone,' says he," etc. "Pope Stephen," says Grandin, doctor and professor of the Sorbonne, "opposed the tradition of the Church to the Africans." — "Concerning the tradition of the whole Church," says Henry of St. Ignatius, "Pope St. Stephen bore testimony when he wrote to St. Cyprian in this cause: Let nothing be innovated save what has been handed down." I pass over other French theologians everywhere testifying the same concerning Stephen.

2o S. Cyprianus objectatae consuetudini solam opponit veritatem. Verum si existimasset S. Doctor hanc consuetudinem haud fuisse universalem, sed quibusdam tantum ecclesiis peculiarem, non solam profecto veritatem, quam pro se ipso stare credebat, sed etiam aliarum sibi faventium Ecclesiarum consuetudinem opposuisset; ideoque contestatus esset suos adversarios et contra veritatem, et contra consuetudinem etiam facere: non nostrum est hoc ratiocinium, sed Augustini: « Cur, inquit, tot Cypriani collegae in concilio dixerunt rationem et veritatem consuetudini praeponendam, ac non potius dixerunt eos quid aliud facere vellent et contra veritatem, et contra consuetudinem facere? »

2nd, St. Cyprian to the custom objected opposes truth alone. Yet if the holy Doctor had thought that this custom was not universal, but peculiar only to certain churches, he would assuredly have opposed not truth alone, which he believed to stand for himself, but also the custom of the other Churches favouring him; and therefore he would have protested that his adversaries acted both against truth and also against custom: this reasoning is not ours, but Augustine's: "Why," says he, "did so many colleagues of Cyprian in the council say that reason and truth must be preferred to custom, and not rather say that those who wished to do otherwise acted both against truth and against custom?"

3o Quonam pacto censuisset Cyprianus consuetudinem solius Romanae Ecclesiae vel etiam alterius sibi adversari, Cyprianus, inquam, qui et ipsam Africanae ecclesiae consuetudinem sibi contrariam fatebatur? Gloriabantur enim S. Cyprianus aliique in Africa rebaptizantes se Africanae Ecclesiae dereliquisse consuetudinem, teste Firmiliano in sua ad Cyprianum epistola: « Quod autem, inquit, pertinet ad consuetudinem refutandam, quam videntur opponere veritati, quis tam vanus sit ut veritati consuetudinem praeferat? aut qui, perspecta luce, tenebras non deserat? Nisi si et Judaeos Christo adveniante, id est veritate, adjuvet in aliquo antiquissima consuetudo, quod, relica nova veritatis via, in vetustate permanserint, quod quidem adversus Stephanum vos dicere Afri potestis, cognita veritate, errorem vos consuetudinis reliquisse. » Ita plane Cyprianus aliique rebaptizantes Africani,

3rd, In what way could Cyprian have judged that the custom of the Roman Church alone, or even of another, was opposed to him—Cyprian, I say, who confessed that the very custom of the African church also was contrary to him? For St. Cyprian and the other rebaptizers in Africa boasted that they had forsaken the custom of the African Church, as Firmilian testifies in his letter to Cyprian: "Now as pertains," says he, "to refuting custom, which they seem to oppose to truth, who would be so vain as to prefer custom to truth, or who, when the light has been perceived, would not forsake the darkness? Unless indeed the most ancient custom helps the Jews also in anything when Christ, that is, the truth, comes, because, forsaking the new way of truth, they have remained in antiquity! Which indeed you Africans can say against Stephen, that having known the truth, you have forsaken the error of custom." Quite thus Cyprian and the other African rebaptizers,

Editors' notes and page, col. 1401

Footnotes

(2) · call in col 1401

In Defens. decl. cleri Gallic. part. II, lib. IV, c. 7.

In the Defence of the Declaration of the Gallican Clergy, part 2, book 4, chapter 7.

(printed under page 752)

(3) · call in col 1401

In tract. de Sacram., cap. 14, pag. 89, edit. Paris, 1718.

In the treatise On the Sacraments, chapter 14, page 89, Paris edition, 1718.

(printed under page 752)

(4) · call in col 1401

Tract. de Sacram. quaest. 3, art. 1, sect. 4, puncto 2°, pag. 31, edit. Paris., 1710.

Treatise On the Sacraments, question 3, article 1, section 4, point 2, page 31, Paris edition, 1710.

(printed under page 752)

(6) ‹anchor: Cur, inquit› · call in col 1401

Lib. III de Bapt. cap. 12.

On Baptism, book 3, chapter 12.

(printed under page 752)

Page

running head: 1401 PARS II. — RECENTIORU
marginal letters: A (in col. 1402); B (in col. 1402); C (in col. 1402); D (in col. 1402)
old-edition numerals: 1347 before Stephanus
other: editors' matter: ctoritate contentum... Africani, (entire column); word split from preceding column: ctoritate (auctoritate)

PL 3:1402

inquit illust. de Saleon, Ruthenensis episcopus, agnoscebant se antiquam mutasse consuetudinem.

says the most illustrious de Saléon, bishop of Rodez, recognized that they had changed the ancient custom.

At, inquies, sanctus Cyprianus, in epist. ad Quintum, et ad Jubaian., nitide affirmat jam pridem ab Agrippino pluribusve aliis Africanis episcopis statutum fuisse, ut ab haereticis baptizati ad Ecclesiam redeuntes iterum baptizarentur, exinde vero multa haereticorum millia in Africanis provinciis juxta hoc statutum fuisse suscepta. Quid inde? Cyprianus ergo Africae consuetudinem sibi contrariam non reperit? Post Agrippinum consuetudo haereticos rebaptizandi in Africa praevaluerat? Haudquaquam. Citata enim Cypriani verba probant quidem Agrippinum pluresve Africanos episcopos, rebaptizationem in suis Ecclesiis introduxisse, ac post Agrippinum nonnullos episcopos illius sententiam, et praxim fuisse secutos, at nullatenus evincunt pluralitatem, et universalitatem episcoporum Africanorum post Agrippinum rebaptizationi favisse, ipso etiam Augustino interprete, qui objectatum Cypriani textum ita explicat, ut minime impediat quominus consuetudo, non rebaptizandi ab Agrippino etiam usque ad Cyprianum in Africa praevaluerit: « Quomodo autem, inquit lib. III de Bapt. cap. 12, Cyprianus dicat atque exinde in hodiernum tot millia haereticorum in provinciis nostris ad Ecclesiam conversi non aspernati sunt neque cunctati, imo et rationabiliter et libenter amplexi sunt ut lavacri vitalis et salutaris baptismi gratiam consequerentur, non video, nisi forte hoc dicat, exinde in hodiernum, quia nulla de illis ex quo in Ecclesia per Agrippini concilium baptizati sunt, quaestio alicujus excommunicationis exorta est. Caeterum si permanebat ab Agrippino usque ad Cyprianum consuetudo baptizandi ab haereticis venientes, ut quid facta sunt a Cypriano de hac re concilia? Ut quid eidem Jubaiano dicit non se rem novam facere aut repentinam, sed ab Agrippino constitutam? Cur enim Jubaianus de novitate turbaretur, ut eum per auctoritatem Agrippini sanari oporteret, si ab Agrippino usque Cyprianum hoc tenebat Ecclesia? » Et cap. 2 ejusdem lib., testatur plures ex illis episcopis qui cum Agrippino pristinam non rebaptizandi mutaverant consuetudinem, ad eam rediisse, ita ut post Agrippinum vetus Ecclesiae consuetudo in Africa undique vigeret.

Yet, you will say, St. Cyprian, in the Letters to Quintus and to Jubaianus, clearly affirms that long ago it had been determined by Agrippinus and several other African bishops that those baptized by heretics when returning to the Church should be baptized a second time, and that thenceforth many thousands of heretics in the African provinces had been received according to this statute. What thence? Did Cyprian therefore not find the custom of Africa contrary to him? After Agrippinus had the custom of rebaptizing heretics prevailed in Africa? By no means. For the cited words of Cyprian prove indeed that Agrippinus and several African bishops introduced rebaptism in their Churches, and that after Agrippinus some bishops followed his opinion and practice, yet they in no way prove that the plurality and universality of the African bishops after Agrippinus favoured rebaptism, even with Augustine himself as interpreter, who so explains the objected text of Cyprian that it by no means prevents the custom of not rebaptizing from having prevailed in Africa even from Agrippinus unto Cyprian: "Now how," says he in book 3 On Baptism, chapter 12, "Cyprian says: 'and thenceforth unto this day so many thousands of heretics converted to the Church in our provinces have neither spurned nor hesitated, nay, both reasonably and gladly have embraced it, that they might obtain the grace of the life-giving laver and saving baptism,' I do not see, unless perhaps he says this, 'thenceforth unto this day,' because no question of any excommunication has arisen concerning them since they were baptized in the Church through the council of Agrippinus. For the rest, if the custom of baptizing those coming from heretics remained from Agrippinus even unto Cyprian, why were councils held by Cyprian concerning this matter? Why does he say to the same Jubaianus that he is not doing a new or sudden thing, but one established by Agrippinus? For why should Jubaianus be troubled about novelty, so that it behooved him to be healed through the authority of Agrippinus, if from Agrippinus unto Cyprian the Church held this?" And in chapter 2 of the same book he testifies that several of those bishops who with Agrippinus had changed the ancient custom of not rebaptizing had returned to it, so that after Agrippinus the old custom of the Church flourished everywhere in Africa.

Hinc patet Firmiliano et Augustino asserentibus Africae consuetudinem a Cypriano derelictam fuisse, non obesse quod Cyprianus affirmat, ab Agrippino scilicet ad suam usque aetatem multa haereticorum millia iterato baptismo in Africa recepta fuisse; verum enim utrumque. Cyprianus Africae consuetudinem

Hence it is plain that when Firmilian and Augustine assert that the custom of Africa was forsaken by Cyprian, what Cyprian affirms does not stand in the way, namely that from Agrippinus even unto his own age many thousands of heretics had been received in Africa by a repeated baptism; for both are true. Cyprian forsook the custom of Africa,

Editors' notes and page, col. 1402

Footnotes

(5) · call in col 1402

Tract. de Sacram., tom. III, pag. 12, edit. Leodiens. 1709.

Treatise On the Sacraments, volume 3, page 12, Liège edition, 1709.

(printed under page 752)

(7) · call in col 1402

Docum. pastor super Ecclesiae decisionum auctoritate, jam laudato, parte I, pag. 21[?].

Pastoral Instruction on the Authority of the Church's Decisions, already cited, part 1, page 21[?] (last digit not legible on the scan).

(printed under page 752)

Page

running head: RECENTIORUM EXCURSUS. 1402
marginal letters: A inquit illust. de; B Agrippinum nonnullos episcopos; C diernum, quia nulla; D ca undique vigeret.
old-edition numerals: 1348 after secutos,
other: editors' matter: inquit illust... consuetudi- (entire column); word split at end of column: consuetudi-
other: the word consuetudinem was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1403

PL 3:1403

dereliquit, quia dereliquit consuetudinem quae a pluralitate praesulum Africanorum servabatur; multa haereticorum millia ab Agrippino usque ad Cyprianum iterato baptismo in Africa recepta fuerunt, quia licet pluralitas Africanorum praesulum Romanam consuetudinem retinuerint, nonnullis tamen magis placuit Agrippini sequi statutum, a quibus multa haereticorum millia iterato baptismo recepta fuerunt. Haecque conciliatio eo benignius suscipienda, quod aliter dicendum foret et Cyprianum sibi ipsi contradicere, et falsa ab Augustino narrari. 1o Cyprianus sibi ipsi contradiceret, quia ex hypothesi vellet in Epist. ad Jubaian. Africae consuetudinem post Agrippinum suae opinioni suffragari, et in Epist ad Firmilianum affirmaret se Africae consuetudinem relinquere. 2o Falsum narrasset Augustinus quando tam saepius, tam confidenter, testabatur consuetudinem Africanam, spectato etiam tempore medio Agrippinum inter et Cyprianum, rebaptizationi fuisse contrariam.

because he forsook the custom which was kept by the plurality of the African prelates; many thousands of heretics from Agrippinus unto Cyprian were received in Africa by a repeated baptism, because although the plurality of the African prelates retained the Roman custom, nevertheless it pleased some better to follow the statute of Agrippinus, by whom many thousands of heretics were received by a repeated baptism. And this reconciliation must be received all the more kindly, because otherwise it would have to be said both that Cyprian contradicted himself, and that false things were narrated by Augustine. 1st, Cyprian would contradict himself, because on the hypothesis he would wish in the Letter to Jubaianus that the custom of Africa after Agrippinus voted for his opinion, and in the Letter to Firmilian he would affirm that he forsook the custom of Africa. 2nd, Augustine would have narrated a falsehood when so often, so confidently he testified that the African custom, even looking at the middle time between Agrippinus and Cyprian, was contrary to rebaptism.

Hoc quidem effutire de Augustino veritus non est P. Gervasius in sua quam Gallico idiomate publicae luci dedit S. Cypriani Vita, lib. V, num. 5, pag. 381. Verum quis patienter ferat tantum Doctorem omnium in hoc rebaptizationis negotio versatissimum saepius ut deceptum, ut a veritate aberrantem, ut falsa obtrudentem, ut malum Cypriani interpretem ab hoc auctore traduci? « Haec jactare, defunctus adhuc loquitur Augustinus, quid est nisi delirare? » Forte, inquies, talia censorem nostrum urgebant argumenta, ut Augustinum ab iis erratis excusare non posset etiam paratissimus. A sequenti caetera disce.

This indeed Father Gervaise was not afraid to blurt out concerning Augustine in his Life of St. Cyprian which he gave to the public light in the French tongue, book 5, number 5, page 381. Yet who can patiently bear that so great a Doctor, most versed of all in this business of rebaptism, is quite often traduced by this author as deceived, as wandering from the truth, as obtruding falsehoods, as a bad interpreter of Cyprian? "To boast these things," Augustine though dead still speaks, "what is it save to rave?" Perhaps, you will say, such arguments urged our censor that he could not excuse Augustine from those mistakes even if most ready to do so. From the following learn the rest.

« Mirum non est, inquit Gervasius, quod Augustinus numerum episcoporum Orientalium qui Cypriani sententiam propugnabant ignoraverit, cum numerum Africanorum nec agnoverit; septuaginta enim episcopos nec plures in Africa recenset, cum vel in uno concilio octoginta septem enumerentur. » Hic Augustinum numeri rebaptizantium ex Africa episcoporum ignarum nobis venditat, praetensamque ignorantiam hanc probat argumento: quia plures, inquit, in Africa rebaptizantes episcopos non recenset S. Doctor quam septuaginta. Nigra falsitas et eo magis intoleranda, quo et scienter prolata, et in dedecus tanti Ecclesiae Doctoris fabricata. En Augustini verba ad Crescon. liber III, cap. 3: « Proinde si omnino credendum sit, 50 episcopis Orientalibus id esse visum, quod 70 Afris, vel aliquanto etiam pluribus contra tot millia episcoporum » etc. Haec verba 70 Afris vel aliquanto etiam pluribus sonantne 70 Afris nec pluribus, ut Auctor tam confidenter affirmat? Audiatur iterum Augustinus: « Visum est, inquit, lib. I de Bapt. » cap. 18, Cypriano cum ferme octoginta coepiscopis suis Africanarum ecclesiarum omnem hominem qui extra Ecclesiae catholicae communionem baptizatus

"It is no wonder," says Gervaise, "that Augustine was ignorant of the number of the Eastern bishops who maintained the opinion of Cyprian, since he did not even know the number of the Africans; for he reckons seventy bishops and no more in Africa, whereas even in one council eighty-seven are enumerated." Here he palms Augustine off upon us as ignorant of the number of the rebaptizing bishops from Africa, and proves this pretended ignorance by an argument: because, says he, the holy Doctor reckons no more rebaptizing bishops in Africa than seventy. A black falsehood, and all the more intolerable inasmuch as it is both knowingly put forward and fabricated to the disgrace of so great a Doctor of the Church! Behold the words of Augustine Against Cresconius, book 3, chapter 3: "Accordingly, if it must altogether be believed that this seemed good to fifty Eastern bishops, which seemed good to seventy Africans, or even somewhat more, against so many thousands of bishops," etc. Do these words, "to seventy Africans or even somewhat more," sound like "to seventy Africans and no more," as the Author so confidently affirms? Let Augustine be heard again: "It seemed good," says he, book 1 On Baptism, chapter 18, "to Cyprian with almost eighty of his fellow-bishops of the African churches, that every man who had been baptized outside the communion of the Catholic Church

Editors' notes and page, col. 1403

Footnotes

(8) ‹anchor: est nisi delirare› · call in col 1403

Pag. 381 usque ad pag. 386, et alibi.

Page 381 to page 386, and elsewhere.

(printed under page 753)

Page

running head: 1403 DE HAERETICORUM BA
marginal letters: A (in col. 1404); B (in col. 1404); C (in col. 1404); D (in col. 1404)
old-edition numerals: 1349 after tantum
other: closing guillemet misplaced after de Bapt. »; editors' matter: nem dereliquit,... baptizatus (entire column); word split from preceding column: nem (consuetudinem)

PL 3:1404

fuisset, oportere ad Ecclesiam venientem denuo baptizari. » Enumeratne hoc et in loco 70 tantum episcopos pro Cypriano?

ought when coming to the Church to be baptized again." Does he in this place also enumerate only seventy bishops for Cyprian?

Nos vidimus, inquit Augustini censor, vel uni Cypriani concilio 87 Africanos episcopos interfuisse, quod Augustinum latuit; at, te ipsomet teste, miser aristarche, singulis horum 87 episcoporum sententias refert ac expendit S. Doctor in lib. VI et VII de Baptismo; quomodo ergo latuit Augustinum huic Cypriani concilio 87 episcopos Africanos interfuisse? Si igitur hos omnes Cypriano erranti non adjunxit, id egit, quia pro sua non omnibus communi aequitate ac justitia noluit catholicas nonnullorum ex illis episcopis sententias erroris accusare, quod imitari melius auctori nostro cessisset, quam in Augustinum indigna anhelasse convicia.

"We have seen," says the censor of Augustine, "that even at one council of Cyprian eighty-seven African bishops were present, which escaped Augustine"; yet, with your very own self as witness, wretched Aristarchus, the holy Doctor reports and weighs the votes of each of these eighty-seven bishops in books VI and VII On Baptism; how then did it escape Augustine that eighty-seven African bishops were present at this council of Cyprian? If therefore he did not join all these to the erring Cyprian, he did this because, in accordance with his equity and justice—not common to all—he was unwilling to accuse of error the Catholic votes of some of those bishops; which it would have turned out better for our author to imitate than to have panted forth unworthy revilings against Augustine.

Haec sunt argumenta, quibus urgetur P. Gervasius ad ignorantiam Augustini revelandam, seu verius ad suam apertissime manifestandam; sed utinam Augustinus solus viperinum hujusce scriptoris dentem expertus fuisset. Demum si ejus auctoritatem sibi contrariam contempsit, saltem sibi aliquando faventem veneratus est. Verum, ut de aliis taceam, quot contumeliosa, quot falsa, quot impia non evomuit in Stephanum pontificem maximum, et sanctissimum martyrem, vix inter ipsos Calvinistas reperias acerbius amariusque insultantem Pontifici.

These are the arguments whereby Father Gervaise is urged to reveal the ignorance of Augustine, or more truly most openly to manifest his own; yet would that Augustine alone had experienced the viperous tooth of this writer! After all, if he despised his authority when contrary to himself, at least he venerated it at times when favouring himself. Yet, to keep silent about others, how many contumelious, how many false, how many impious things has he not vomited forth against Stephen, the supreme pontiff and most holy martyr! Scarcely among the Calvinists themselves could you find anyone insulting the Pontiff more sharply and more bitterly.

Stephanus, si ipsi fides, indigne penitus erga Cyprianum se gessit. Stephanus fastum tumide ac dominatum affectat. Stephanus imperantem ac tyrannum agit, inhumanitatis, vexationis, tyrannidis reus. Stephanus Ecclesiae unitatem scindere flocci facit; Cyprianum inauditum judicat et damnat. Stephanus Cypriani, quem ut pseudo-christum pseudo-apostolum, dolosum et perfidum infamabat, episcopis legatis pacem, communionem, hospitalitatem non negavit solum, sed negandam quoque ab omnibus et ubique praecepit. Stephanus zelum prae se fert quidem, sed ad omnia promiscue devastanda unice sufficientem, hic Stephani zelus Imperatorem movit ad Ecclesiam crudeliter persequendam. Stephanus non unum vel duos dumtaxat, sed tres errores fidei catholicae adversos docet in suo rescripto. Tandem vero, quasi haec omnia pro Stephani demeritis minime sufficerent, contestatur Gervasius se cum omni moderatione ac temperantia possibili de Stephano verba facere.

Stephen, if credit is to be given to him, "bore himself utterly unworthily towards Cyprian." Stephen "swellingly affects pride and domination." Stephen acts "the commander and tyrant," guilty of inhumanity, vexation, and tyranny. Stephen counts it as a straw to rend the unity of the Church; he judges and condemns Cyprian unheard. Stephen not only denied peace, communion, and hospitality to the bishop-legates of Cyprian, whom he defamed as a false Christ, a false apostle, deceitful and perfidious, but also commanded that it be denied by all and everywhere. Stephen displays zeal indeed, yet one uniquely sufficient for promiscuously devastating all things; this zeal of Stephen moved the Emperor cruelly to persecute the Church. Stephen teaches in his rescript not one or two only, but three errors contrary to the Catholic faith. And finally, as though all these things by no means sufficed for the demerits of Stephen, Gervaise protests that he speaks concerning Stephen with all possible moderation and temperance!

Coeli! quae video! Haec Francus? Haec catholicus? Haec Dei sacerdos? Haec filius? Haec de Patre? Haec de Pontifice maximo? Haec de traditionis vindice? Haec de sanctissimo martyre? O licentiosam scriptionem, inultam nihilominus, proh superi, et impunitam! « O portentum non, sicut ait quidam, in ultimas terras exportandum, sed potius extra omne coelum et omnes terras si fieri possit abigendum?

Heavens! What do I see! Does a Frenchman say these things? Does a Catholic? Does a priest of God? Does a son? Does he say these things of a Father? These things of the Supreme Pontiff? These things of the defender of tradition? These things of a most holy martyr? O licentious writing, unavenged nevertheless, ye gods, and unpunished! "O portent, not, as someone says, to be banished to the furthest lands, but rather to be driven away beyond every heaven and all lands, if it could be done!"

Editors' notes and page, col. 1404

Page

running head: TICORUM BAPTISMATE 1404
marginal letters: A fuisset, oportere ad; B convicia.; C minatum affectat. Stephanus; D phani demeritis minime
old-edition numerals: 1350 after et
other: editors' matter: fuisset, oportere... abigen- (entire column); word split at end of column: abigen-
other: the word abigendum? was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1405

PL 3:1405

» Haec legentur! Haec credentur? Haec posteris tradentur? Verba desunt, meus deficit, horrescit animus; ad placida, ad vera, ad humana, ad pia et catholica transeamus. Redeamus ad nos. « His enim malis magis debentur prolixi gemitus quam prolixi libri. » Aug., epist. 22.

Shall these things be read! Shall these things be believed? Shall these things be handed down to posterity? Words fail, the mind faints, the soul shudders; let us pass over to peaceful, to true, to humane, to pious and Catholic things. Let us return to ourselves. "For to these evils long groans are more due than long books." Augustine, Letter 22.

II. Episcopus anonymus Cypriano coaevus non semel landatus tria de Cypriano ejusque asseclis tradit in tractatu, qui incipit his verbis: « Non debere denuo, » etc. Quae manifestissime ostendunt notum abunde fuisse S. Doctori consuetudinem haereticos non rebaptizandi universalem Ecclesiae tunc temporis fuisse praxim. Tradit enim: 1o Cyprianum eique adhaerentes novam de rebaptizandis haereticis opinionem protulisse, quia non erant contenti venerabili ecclesiarum omnium auctoritate, qua tamen pro humilitate necessaria contenti esse debuissent: « In quo genere quaestionis de rebapt. haeret., inquit, nulla omnino potuisset controversia aut disceptatio emergere, si unusquisque nostrum contentus venerabili Ecclesiarum omnium auctoritate et necessaria humilitate nihil innovare gestiret. »

II. The anonymous bishop contemporary with Cyprian, praised more than once, hands down three things concerning Cyprian and his followers in the treatise which begins with these words: "That they ought not again," etc., which most manifestly show that it was abundantly known to the holy Doctor that the custom of not rebaptizing heretics was at that time the universal practice of the Church. For he hands down: 1st, That Cyprian and those adhering to him put forward a new opinion concerning rebaptizing heretics, because they were not content with the venerable authority of all the churches, wherewith nevertheless in accordance with necessary humility they ought to have been content: "In which kind of question concerning rebaptizing heretics," says he, "no controversy or debate at all could have emerged, if each one of us, content with the venerable authority of all the Churches and necessary humility, desired to innovate nothing."

2o Cyprianum redarguit quod gloriaretur se correxisse vitia et errores universarum ecclesiarum: « Errores, inquit, et vitia universarum ecclesiarum correxisse apud simillimos sui et compares glorietur. »

2nd, He refutes Cyprian because he boasted that he had corrected the faults and errors of all the churches: "Let him boast among those most like himself and his fellows," says he, "that he has corrected the errors and faults of all the churches."

3o Cyprianum, Cyprianique asseclas exhibet ut episcopos, qui non verebantur detegere turpitudinem matris Ecclesiae, si quam esse in hac de Baptismo quaestione putabant: « Monstri, inquit, simile est ipsos episcopos talia scandala cogitare, et turpitudinem matris Ecclesiae, si quam putant in hoc negotio esse, nimis irreverentur non vereri detegere. »

3rd, He exhibits Cyprian and the followers of Cyprian as bishops who were not afraid to uncover the nakedness of Mother Church, if they thought there was any in this question concerning Baptism: "It is like a monster," says he, "for the bishops themselves to devise such scandals, and too irreverently not to be afraid to uncover the nakedness of Mother Church, if they think there is any in this business."

Porro qui non erat contentus venerabili Ecclesiarum omnium auctoritate, non Stephani tantum, sed et Ecclesiarum omnium auctoritati obaudire nolebat; non ergo solum Stephanum, sed et caeteras undique Ecclesias noverat Cyprianus suae opinioni ac praxi esse contrarias. Qui gloriabatur se correxisse errores universarum, profecto non ignorabat universas ecclesias a se dissentire; qui non verebatur turpitudinem matris Ecclesiae detegere, palam ostendit matrem Ecclesiam suae, quam veram putabat, opinioni adversari.

Now he who "was not content with the venerable authority of all the Churches" was unwilling to obey the authority not of Stephen only, but also of all the Churches; Cyprian therefore knew that not Stephen alone, but also the rest of the Churches on every side were contrary to his opinion and practice. He who "boasted that he had corrected the errors of all" the churches was assuredly not ignorant that all the churches dissented from him; he who "was not afraid to uncover the nakedness of Mother Church" openly showed that Mother Church was opposed to his opinion, which he thought true.

III. S. Hieronymus in Dial. adversus Lucif., tom. IV, part. II, pag. 306, haec habet: « Ecclesia semper

III. St. Jerome in the Dialogue against the Luciferians, volume 4, part 2, page 306, has these words: "The Church has always

Editors' notes and page, col. 1405

Footnotes

(9) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot image

August. ad Crescon., l. III. c. 5.

Augustine, Against Cresconius, book III, chapter 5.

(printed under page 754)

(10) ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible in the page-foot image

Cyprianum, tacito tamen ejus nomine, ab hoc auctore potissimum perstringi facile deprehenditur; tum quia adversarium suum tanquam ornate, et composite scribentem nobis exponit, quo tamen, inquit, non valde illam nostram fidem lædat, sed non ornate ut tu et composite; porro ex Africanis alium præter Cyprianum tunc pro rebaptizatione ornate et composite scripsisse non invenitur. Tum quia refutat adversarium qui plures Scripturæ textus pro sua opinione retulerat: Ad quæ, inquit, forte tu qui novum quid inducis continuo respondeas ut soles, dixisse in Evangelio Dominum nisi quis denuo natus fuerit. Et infra, Nec æstimes huic tractatui contrarium quod dixit Dominus: « Ite docete Gentes. » Et Paulo post: Sed ad hoc ut soles contradices opponendo nobis tunc cum baptizarentur integre ac recte discipulos, etc. Porro cum ii textus a Cypriano solo tunc temporis objectati legantur, Cyprianus ille erat adversarius quem auctor perstringebat; atque ita sentiunt ex Gallis Tillemontius, Hist. eccles. t. IV, p. 152, Defensor Declarationis Cleri Gallicani 1682 part. II, lib. XIV, p. 266 et alii.

It is easily detected that Cyprian, though his name is not spoken, is the one this author chiefly censures: first, because he presents his opponent to us as one who writes ornately and elegantly — by which, however, he says, it does not greatly harm that faith of ours, but not ornately and elegantly as you do; and further, no African besides Cyprian is found to have written at that time ornately and elegantly for rebaptism. Secondly, because he refutes an opponent who had cited several texts of Scripture for his opinion: To which, he says, perhaps you who are bringing in something new will at once reply, as you are wont, that the Lord said in the Gospel, unless one be born again. And below: Nor should you think contrary to this treatise what the Lord said: “Go, teach the nations.” And a little after: But to this, as you are wont, you will object by setting against us that the disciples were then baptized wholly and rightly, etc. Now since these texts are read as having been put forward at that time by Cyprian alone, that Cyprian was the opponent whom the author was censuring; and so think, among the French, Tillemont, Ecclesiastical History, vol. IV, p. 152, the Defender of the Declaration of the Gallican Clergy of 1682, part II, book XIV, p. 266, and others.

(printed under page 754)

Page

running head: 1405 PARS II. — RECENTIORUM
marginal letters: A (in col. 1406); B (in col. 1406); C (in col. 1406); D (in col. 1406)
old-edition numerals: 1351 before temporis
other: editors' matter: dum? » Haec... semper (entire column); word split from preceding column: dum (abigendum)

PL 3:1406

ab haereticis baptismum recepit... quod si negandum quispiam putaverit haereticos a majoribus nostris semper fuisse suspectos, legat B. Cypriani epistolas, in quibus Stephanum Romanae urbis episcopum, et inveteratae consuetudinis lacerat errorem. » Duo hic ostendunt S. Cyprianum in mente S. Hieronymi non ignorasse consuetudinem Ecclesiae suae opinioni et praxi fuisse contrariam: 1o S. Hieronymus ex Cypriani epistolis colligit, et probat praxim haereticos non rebaptizandi perpetuam Ecclesiae ac majorum nostrorum consuetudinem fuisse; ad mentem ergo S. Hieronymi S. Cyprianus perpetuam hanc Ecclesiae ac majorum nostrorum consuetudinem in suis epistolis manifestabat; hanc ergo sibi adversam Ecclesiae consuetudinem non ignorabat. 2o Cyprianus juxta Hieronymum erroris accusabat non solius Stephani, sed et Ecclesiae consuetudinem; noverat ergo non solius Stephani, sed Ecclesiae consuetudinem sibi adversari.

received baptism from heretics... now if anyone thinks it must be denied that heretics were always received by our ancestors, let him read the letters of Blessed Cyprian, wherein he tears Stephen, bishop of the city of Rome, and the error of inveterate custom." Two things here show that St. Cyprian, in the mind of St. Jerome, was not ignorant that the custom of the Church was contrary to his opinion and practice: 1st, St. Jerome from the letters of Cyprian gathers and proves that the practice of not rebaptizing heretics was the perpetual custom of the Church and of our ancestors; according to the mind of St. Jerome, therefore, St. Cyprian manifested in his letters this perpetual custom of the Church and of our ancestors; he was not ignorant therefore of this custom of the Church opposed to him. 2nd, Cyprian according to Jerome accused of error the custom not of Stephen alone, but also of the Church; he knew therefore that the custom not of Stephen alone, but of the Church was opposed to him.

Repones fortasse juxta Hieronymum consuetudinem quidem a Cypriano lacerari, sed non consuetudinem universalem Ecclesiae; at si Hieronymus de universali Ecclesiae consuetudine non loqueretur, suum minime probaret intentum. Enimvero ex eo quod Cyprianus laceravit inveteratam consuetudinem haereticos non rebaptizandi, Hieronymus probare intendit haereticos sine baptismo, ab Ecclesia, a majoribus nostris semper fuisse susceptos. Porro ex eo quod Cyprianus lacerasset consuetudinem hanc quibusdam peculiarem, probaret quidem haereticos sine iterato baptismo ab aliquibus semper fuisse susceptos; at minime probaret eos ita semper, ita a majoribus nostris indefinite, ac ab Ecclesia fuisse susceptos; ergo quando S. Hieronymus dicit consuetudinem a Cypriano laceratam fuisse, universalem spectat Ecclesiae consuetudinem.

You will reply perhaps that according to Jerome a custom indeed is torn by Cyprian, yet not the universal custom of the Church; but if Jerome were not speaking of the universal custom of the Church, he would by no means prove his purpose. For in truth from the fact that Cyprian tore the inveterate custom of not rebaptizing heretics, Jerome intends to prove that heretics were always received without baptism by the Church, by our ancestors. Now from the fact that Cyprian had torn this custom peculiar to some, he would prove indeed that heretics had always been received without a repeated baptism by some; yet he would by no means prove that they had thus always, thus by our ancestors indefinitely, and by the Church been received; therefore when St. Jerome says that the custom was torn by Cyprian, he regards the universal custom of the Church.

IV. S. Augustinus, cui, vel nulli in re fides praestanda, centies affirmat S. Cyprianum apprime novisse consuetudinem Ecclesiae universalis sibi rebaptizanti adversari. « Noluit, inquit, lib. II De Baptismo, c. 8, vir gravissimus (Cyprianus) veraci consuetudini cedere... sed in tam obscura quaestione turbatus et ubique intuens universalem, robustamque consuetudinem, » haereticos scilicet non rebaptizandi. Quid clarius? Cyprianus ubique intuebatur universalem, robustamque consuetudinem haereticos non rebaptizandi; et c. 9: Hanc autem (Stephani R. P.) fuisse consuetudinem Ecclesiae

IV. St. Augustine, to whom, or to no one in the matter, credit must be given, a hundred times affirms that St. Cyprian knew exceedingly well that the custom of the universal Church was opposed to him when rebaptizing. "The most weighty man (Cyprian)," says he, book 2 On Baptism, chapter 8, "was unwilling to yield to the truthful custom... even though troubled in so obscure a question and beholding everywhere the universal and robust custom," namely of not rebaptizing heretics. What is clearer? Cyprian beheld everywhere the universal and robust custom of not rebaptizing heretics; and chapter 9: "Now that this (of Stephen the Roman Pontiff) was the custom of the Church

Editors' notes and page, col. 1406

Page

running head: RECENTIORUM EXCURSUS. 1406
marginal letters: A ab haereticis baptismum; B ignorabat. 2o Cyprianus; C per fuisse susceptos;; D haereticos non rebaptizandi;
old-edition numerals: 1352 before haereticos
other: missing opening guillemet before Hanc autem; editors' matter: ab haereticis... Eccle- (entire column); word split at end of column: Eccle-
other: the word Ecclesiae was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1407

PL 3:1407

satis ostenditur et ipsius B. Cypriani verbis. » Et iis citatis, sic pergit: « Ubi certe quid fieri soleret, et si non fieri vellet satis ostendit..... aperte indicat (Cyprianus) fuisse aliam consuetudinem Ecclesiae, et in ipso concilio (Carthagin. III) nonnullae sententiae omnino declarant eos contra Ecclesiae consuetudinem decrevisse quod decernendum esse arbitrati sunt. » Quid luculentius? « Verba ipsius B. Cypriani satis ostendunt » quam Stephanus urgebat consuetudinem fuisse Ecclesiae consuetudinem. Cyprianus satis ostendit quid fieri soleret et si non fieri vellet, scilicet Ecclesiae consuetudinem suae opinioni adversari. Cyprianus aperte indicat fuisse aliam consuetudinem Ecclesiae. Et Africani nonnulli in concilio Carthag. III omnino declarant se contra consuetudinem Ecclesiae rebaptizandos esse haereticos decrevisse. Numquid ergo ignorabant Cyprianus Africanique praesules, consuetudinem Ecclesiae sibi adversari?

is sufficiently shown even by the words of Blessed Cyprian himself." And having cited these, he continues thus: "Where certainly he sufficiently shows what was wont to be done, even though he wished it not to be done... (Cyprian) openly indicates that the custom of the Church was other, and in the council itself (the Third of Carthage) some votes altogether declare that they decreed against the custom of the Church what they supposed ought to be decreed." What is more lucid? "The words of Blessed Cyprian himself sufficiently show" that the custom which Stephen urged was the custom of the Church. Cyprian "sufficiently shows" what was wont to be done even though he wished it not to be done, namely that the custom of the Church was opposed to his opinion. Cyprian "openly indicates" that the custom of the Church was other. And some Africans in the Third Council of Carthage "altogether declare" that they decreed against the custom of the Church that heretics must be rebaptized. Were Cyprian and the African prelates therefore ignorant that the custom of the Church was opposed to them?

Audiatur iterum S. Augustinus, in lib. IV de Bapt., c. 6: « Istam consuetudinem (haereticos non rebaptizandi) tam robustam et antea idem Cyprianus invenit, ut cum ejus mutandae auctoritatem quam sequeretur vir tanta scientia praeditus quaereret, nonnisi in Africa sola factum paucis ante se annis Agrippini concilium reperiret, quod cum sibi adversus totius orbis morem non sufficere cerneret, has rationes arripuit. » Cernebat Cyprianus eo teste, cui melius, quam nuperis quibusdam theologis explorata erant Cypriani verba atque sensa, Agrippini auctoritatem, quam in haereticis rebaptizandis sequebatur, sibi non sufficere adversus totius orbis morem: profecto ergo sciebat morem totius orbis rebaptizationi haereticorum esse contrarium.

Let St. Augustine be heard again, in book 4 On Baptism, chapter 6: "That custom (of not rebaptizing heretics) the same Cyprian found so robust previously also, that when the man endowed with so great knowledge sought an authority for changing it which he might follow, he found only the council of Agrippinus held in Africa alone a few years before himself; which since he perceived not to suffice for him against the custom of the whole world, he laid hold of these reasons." Cyprian perceived, by his witness to whom the words and sentiments of Cyprian were better ascertained than to certain recent theologians, that the authority of Agrippinus, which he followed in rebaptizing heretics, did not suffice for him against "the custom of the whole world": assuredly therefore he knew that the custom of the whole world was contrary to the rebaptism of heretics.

Rursus Augustinus lib. VI de Bapt., c. 35: « Si consuetudo erat, inquit, sicut haec sententia testis est, ut haeretici venientes ad Ecclesiam cum baptismo quod habebant reciperentur, cur orbem terrarum quia sic recipiuntur accusant? » Episcopi scilicet concilii Carthagin. III inter quos Cyprianus.. Porro qui accusant orbem terrarum, quod haeretici sine iterato baptismo reciperentur, non ignorant profecto ab orbe terrarum haereticos sic recipi, et lib. VII, c. 2: « Eam quoque fuisse consuetudinem ut sic reciperentur (haeretici sine iterato baptismo), et ipse Cyprianus multis locis et aliquot episcopi in hoc concilio (Carthag. III) manifestant; unde apparet si haeretici non habent baptismum, Ecclesiam Christi temporum illorum praevaricatoribus fuisse plenam, qui eis suffragantes sic recipiebant. « Undenam probat S. Doctor viguisse, Cypriani etiam aetate, Ecclesiae consuetudinem, ut haeretici sine novo baptismo reciperentur? Ex ipso, ut vides, sancto Cypriano, qui multis locis illud manifestat; non ergo ignorabat antistes Carthaginensis eam fuisse Ecclesiae consuetudinem.

Again Augustine, book 6 On Baptism, chapter 35: "If the custom was," says he, "even as this vote is witness, that heretics coming to the Church should be received with the baptism which they had, why do they accuse the whole world because they are thus received?" Namely the bishops of the Third Council of Carthage, among whom was Cyprian. Now those who accuse the whole world because heretics were received without a repeated baptism are assuredly not ignorant that heretics are thus received by the whole world; and book 7, chapter 2: "That this also was the custom, that they should be thus received (heretics without a repeated baptism), both Cyprian himself in many places and some bishops in this council (the Third of Carthage) manifest; whence it appears that if heretics do not have baptism, the Church of Christ of those times was full of prevaricators, who voting for them received them thus." Whence does the holy Doctor prove that the custom of the Church flourished, even in the age of Cyprian, that heretics should be received without a new baptism? From St. Cyprian himself, as you see, who in many places manifests that; the prelate of Carthage therefore was not ignorant that this was the custom of the Church.

Non pigeat, quaeso, Augustinum adhuc audire: « Talem, inquit lib. VII de Bapt., c. 25, fuisse Ecclesiae

Let it not irk you, I pray, still to hear Augustine: "That such," says he in book 7 On Baptism, chapter 25, "was the custom of the

Editors' notes and page, col. 1407

Page

running head: 1407 DE HAERETICORUM BA
marginal letters: A (in col. 1408); B (in col. 1408); C (in col. 1408); D (in col. 1408)
old-edition numerals: 1353 after tismo
other: editors' matter: siae satis... Ec- (entire column); words split at column breaks: siae (Ecclesiae), Ec-
other: the word Ecclesiae was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1408

PL 3:1408

consuetudinem (haereticos scilicet non rebaptizandi), ipsi qui hoc concilium Carthagin. III faciunt saepe commemorant. » Noverat ergo Cyprianus, noverant Africani episcopi, qui huic concilio interfuerunt, talem fuisse, non Stephani tantum, sed et Ecclesiae consuetudinem. Et in epist. 93, ad Vincentium Rogatist., c. 10: « Cyprianus autem sensisse aliter, quam forma et consuetudo habebat Ecclesiae, non in canonicis sed in suis et in concilii litteris invenitur. » Si in Cypriani litteris invenitur ipsum aliter de baptismo sensisse, quam consuetudo habebat Ecclesiae, Cyprianus profecto in suis litteris ostendit consuetudinem Ecclesiae alienam esse a sua sententia.

Church (namely of not rebaptizing heretics), the very men who hold this Third Council of Carthage often mention." Cyprian therefore knew, the African bishops who were present at this council knew, that such was the custom not of Stephen only, but also of the Church. And in Letter 93, To Vincentius the Rogatist, chapter 10: "Now that Cyprian thought otherwise than the form and custom of the Church held, is found not in the canonical writings, but in his own letters and in those of the council." If in the letters of Cyprian it is found that he thought otherwise concerning baptism than the custom of the Church held, Cyprian assuredly in his letters shows that the custom of the Church is alien from his opinion.

Quid amplius ab Augustino desideraretur in gratiam assertionis nostrae? S. Cyprianus, teste Augustino, satis ostendit, aperte indicat, omnino declarat, saepe commemorat multis, locis manifestat non Stephani tantum, sed et Ecclesiae consuetudinem esse, ut haeretici venientes ad Ecclesiam cum baptismo quod habebant reciperentur. Cyprianus accusabat non solum Stephanum, sed orbem terrarum, quod haeretici sic reciperentur. Cyprianus cernebat se agere adversus totius orbis morem. Cyprianus ubique intuebatur universalem et robustam consuetudinem haereticos non rebaptizandi. Haec sine ambagibus, sine verborum circuitu, nullis involuta tenebris, nitida, luculenta centies repetita, firmiter, ac evidenter ostendunt exploratum Cypriano sine dubio fuisse, consuetudinem haereticos non rebaptizandi tunc temporis fuisse consuetudinem universalem Ecclesiae, consuetudinem orbis terrarum, totius orbis morem, quem ubique intuebatur.

What more could be desired from Augustine in favour of our assertion? St. Cyprian, as Augustine testifies, "sufficiently shows, openly indicates, altogether declares, often mentions, in many places manifests that it is the custom not of Stephen only, but also of the Church," that heretics coming to the Church should be received with the baptism which they had. Cyprian "accused" not only Stephen, "but the whole world," because heretics were thus received. Cyprian "perceived" that he acted "against the custom of the whole world." Cyprian "beheld everywhere the universal and robust custom" of not rebaptizing heretics. These things, without windings, without a circuit of words, wrapped in no darkness, clear, lucid, repeated a hundred times, firmly and evidently show that it was without doubt ascertained to Cyprian that the custom of not rebaptizing heretics was at that time the "universal" custom "of the Church," the custom "of the whole world, the custom of the entire world," which "he beheld everywhere."

V. Universalem Ecclesiae de non rebaptizandis haereticis consuetudinem nec a Cypriano, nec ab ejus asseclis in dubium revocatam fuisse manifestat et status controversiae, quae Cyprianum inter et alios agitabatur; hunc dilucide exponit anonymus episcopus Cypriano coaevus saepius laudatus iis verbis: « Animadverto quaesitum apud fratres, quid potius observari oportet in personam eorum, qui in haeresi quidem sed in nomine Domini Dei nostri Jesu Christi tincti, postmodum inde digressi et suppliciter ad Ecclesiam Dei advolantes, totis praecordiis poenitentiam agerent, et erroris sui damnationem nunc demum intelligentes, auxilium salutis ab ea implorent: utrum vetustissima consuetudine ac traditione ecclesiastica post illum qui foris quidem, sed in nomine Jesu Christi Dominicum acceperunt baptisma, tantummodo imponi eis manum ab episcopo ad accipiendum Spiritum sanctum sufficeret, et haec manus impositio signum fidei iteratum atque consummatum eis praestaret; an vero etiam iteratum baptisma iis necessarium esset tamquam nihil habituris, si hoc quoque adepti ex integro non fuissent, perinde ac si nunquam baptizati in nomine Jesu Christi forent, ideoque nonnulla super hac nova quaestione scripta aut rescripta

V. That the universal custom of the Church concerning not rebaptizing heretics was called into doubt neither by Cyprian nor by his followers, the state of the controversy also manifests which was agitated between Cyprian and the others; this the anonymous bishop contemporary with Cyprian, quite often praised, clearly sets forth in these words: "I notice that it has been asked among the brethren what ought rather to be observed towards the person of those who, dipped in heresy indeed, yet in the name of the Lord our God Jesus Christ, afterwards departing thence and suppliantly flying to the Church of God, should repent with their whole heart, and now at length understanding the condemnation of their error, implore the help of salvation from her: whether according to the most ancient custom and ecclesiastical tradition, after that baptism of the Lord which they have received outside indeed, yet in the name of Jesus Christ, it would suffice that the hand only be laid upon them by the bishop for receiving the Holy Spirit, and this laying on of the hand would afford them the repeated and consummated sign of faith; or whether a repeated baptism also would be necessary for them, as being about to have nothing if they had not obtained this also anew, just as though they had never been baptized in the name of Jesus Christ; and therefore some writings or rescripts upon this new question

Editors' notes and page, col. 1408

Page

running head: TICORUM BAPTISMATE 1408
marginal letters: A clesiae consuetudinem (haereticos; B gratiam assertionis nostrae?; C nem universalem Ecclesiae,; D damnationem nunc demum
old-edition numerals: 1354 after episcopus
other: editors' matter: clesiae consuetudinem... res- (entire column); words split at column breaks: clesiae (Ecclesiae), res-
other: the word rescripta was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1409

PL 3:1409

esse jactabantur, quibus utraque pars ad destruenda aliena summo studio nitebatur. » En status controversiae, quaeritur utrum observari potius oporteat vetustissima Ecclesiae consuetudo ac traditio qua haeretici ad Ecclesiam venientes cum baptismo quod foris receperant suscipiebantur, an vero baptisma iis adhuc sit necessarium, quia nihil essent habituri si hoc non acciperent.

were boasted to exist, whereby each party strove with the highest zeal to destroy the things of the other." Behold the state of the controversy: it is asked whether the most ancient custom and tradition of the Church ought rather to be observed, whereby heretics coming to the Church were received with the baptism which they had received outside, or whether baptism is still necessary for them, because they would have nothing if they did not receive this.

Hic porro quaestionis status manifeste supponit ab omnibus ultro admissam fuisse hujusce Ecclesiae de non rebaptizandis haereticis antiquissimae consuetudinis existentiam, cum de ea quaeratur tantummodo utrum servari, vel non servari debeat; unde citatus auctor, qui totus est in refellendis Cypriani rationibus nunquam de ipso conqueritur, quod hujus Ecclesiae consuetudinis existentiam in dubium revocaret; at saepius ipsi exprobrat, ut supra vidimus, quod nollet esse contentus venerabili ecclesiarum omnium auctoritate, quod rebaptizationem haereticorum minime damnaret, quam tamen judicabat contrariam solemnissimae cunctorum emeritorum sanctorum et fidelium observationi. « In quo genere, inquit, quaestionis (de rebaptiz. haereticis) ut mihi videtur nulla omnino potuisset controversia aut disceptatio emergere, si unusquisque nostrum contentus venerabili ecclesiarum omnium auctoritate et necessaria humilitate nihil innovare gestiret; namque omne quod anceps et ambiguum et diversis sententiis prudentium ac fidelium virorum constitutum est, si contra priscam et memorabilem cunctorum emeritorum sanctorum et fidelium solemnissimam observationem judicatur, damnari utique debet. » Cypriano exprobrat, quod auctoritati tot annorum, totque ecclesiarum acquiescere nollet; quod insurgeret adversus ecclesiasticam tot saeculorum consuetudinem: « Per quam, inquit, utile est credere, et tot annorum totque ecclesiarum auctoritati cum bona ratione acquiescere, cum sit maximum incommodum ac dispendium sanctissimae matris Ecclesiae adversus prisca consulta post tot saeculorum seriem nunc primum ac sine ratione insurgere. » Ex quibus omnibus liquet nemini rebaptizantium tunc temporis fuisse dubiam hanc de non rebaptizandis haereticis Ecclesiae consuetudinem; unde Venerabilis Beda asserebat Cyprianum cum suis Africanis non contra Stephani vel alterius praxim, sed contra morem Ecclesiae statuere voluisse haereticos esse rebaptizandos.

Now this state of the question manifestly supposes that the existence of this most ancient custom of the Church concerning not rebaptizing heretics was voluntarily admitted by all, since concerning it the only question asked is whether it ought to be kept or not kept; whence the cited author, who is wholly occupied in refuting the reasons of Cyprian, never complains of him that he called the existence of this custom of the Church into doubt; yet quite often he reproaches him, as we saw above, because he was unwilling to be "content with the venerable authority of all the churches," because he by no means condemned the rebaptism of heretics, which nevertheless he judged contrary to the most solemn observance of all veteran saints and faithful. "In which kind of question (concerning rebaptizing heretics)," says he, "as it seems to me, no controversy or debate at all could have emerged, if each one of us, content with the venerable authority of all the churches and necessary humility, desired to innovate nothing; for everything which is doubtful and ambiguous and established by diverse opinions of prudent and faithful men, if it is judged contrary to the ancient and memorable most solemn observance of all veteran saints and faithful, ought certainly to be condemned." He reproaches Cyprian because he was unwilling to acquiesce in the authority of so many years and so many churches; because he rose up against the ecclesiastical custom of so many centuries: "It is exceedingly useful," says he, "to believe and with good reason to acquiesce in the authority of so many years and so many churches, since it is the greatest inconvenience and loss to our most holy Mother the Church to rise up now for the first time and without reason after the series of so many centuries against the ancient decrees." From all of which it is clear that to no one of the rebaptizers at that time was this custom of the Church concerning not rebaptizing heretics doubtful; whence the Venerable Bede asserted that Cyprian with his Africans wished to determine that heretics must be rebaptized, not against the practice of Stephen or of another, but "against the custom of the Church."

VI. Tandem Cyprianum hanc Ecclesiae consuetudinem ignorasse, veterum nullus vel obscure semel indicavit, haud nesciis adversariis nostris, qui ad praetensam Cypriani ignorantiam firmandam, nullum hactenus alicujus antiquitatis testimonium afferre potuerunt. Et certe, Cyprianum hujusce consuetudinis ignarum nunquam audissemus, nisi nuperis nonnullis aetatis nostrae scriptoribus placuisset

VI. Finally, that Cyprian was ignorant of this custom of the Church, no one of the ancients has even once obscurely indicated, as our adversaries are well aware, who to confirm the pretended ignorance of Cyprian have hitherto been able to bring forward no testimony of any antiquity. And certainly we should never have heard that Cyprian was ignorant of this custom, had it not pleased some recent writers of our age

Editors' notes and page, col. 1409

Footnotes

(11) ‹anchor: esse rebaptizandos› · call in col 1409

In lib. Aliquot quæst., t. VII, p. 289.

In the book Some Questions, vol. VII, p. 289.

(printed under page 756)

Page

running head: 1409 PARS II. — RECENTIORUM
marginal letters: A (in col. 1410); B (in col. 1410); C (in col. 1410); D (in col. 1410)
old-edition numerals: 1355 before consulta
other: editors' matter: cripta esse... pla- (entire column); words split at column breaks: cripta (rescripta), pla-
other: the word placuisset was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1410

PL 3:1410

magis novae opinionis adinventores se videri, quam antiquam tot saeculorum fidem sequi se profiteri. Quid ergo? Posthabitis, spretisque tot et tantis, quae huc usque ex primaeva antiquitate et praecipue ex Augustino deprompsimus testimoniis, spreta itidem communi Gallorum scriptorum ac theologorum de hac re sententia, vix natis horum paucorum placitis omni verisimilitudine etiam destitutis subscribemus? Absit, si homines sumus, si qualemcumque rationem, si sensum habemus humanum.

rather to seem the inventors of a new opinion than to profess that they follow the ancient faith of so many centuries. What then? Setting aside and despising so many and so great testimonies which we have hitherto drawn from primeval antiquity and chiefly from Augustine, despising likewise the common opinion of the French writers and theologians concerning this matter, shall we subscribe to the scarcely born opinions of these few men, destitute even of all likelihood? Far be it, if we are men, if we have any reason whatsoever, if we have human sense!

Equidem satis mirari non possum talem ab istis recentioribus de Cypriano fingi ac venditari potuisse ignorantiam, istorum enim nemo profundam in rebus ecclesiasticis Cypriani eruditionem vividioribus depinxit coloribus majorique strepitu ac conatu ostentavit. Ad illam extollendam inexhausta pene diceres omnia summorum Pontificum, conciliorum, SS. Patrum, historicorum, poetarum monumenta; sacrum et profanum, omnia undique quaesita, arrepta, citata; tot laboribus ad illustrandam et manifestandam Cypriani doctrinam exantlatis, quis crederet? Cyprianum illius ignarum pronuntiant Ecclesiae consuetudinis, quae ipsis fatentibus praecipuum fidei nostrae dogma complectebatur. En tot de Cypriani doctrina praeconiorum inexpectata conclusio: Cyprianus ignorabat Ecclesiae consuetudinem, quae praecipuum fidei nostrae caput spectabat. Sic doctus et ignarus, oculatus et obtusus ad istorum nutum Cyprianus, oculatissimus, ut paucos sibi faventes episcopos agnoscat, obtusissimus ut innumeros sibi adversos ignoret: ad indignandos asseclas Cypriano tempus abunde suppeditatur, ad detegendos autem adversarios decennium, quo Carthaginensem rexit Ecclesiam sufficere non potuit; sic inanem caliginem perspicuis rebus aspergunt homines, digni sane, qui experiantur absurda quaeque et ultima. Nostris ergo naeniae jam cedant argumentis, sensatique omnes veridico ore dicamus Cyprianum probe novisse quam Stephanus R. P. vindicabat haereticos non rebaptizandi consuetudinem, universalem Ecclesiae tunc temporis fuisse consuetudinem, sive, ut Augustini verbis utar, Cyprianum hanc consuetudinem ubique et universalem intuitum fuisse.

Indeed I cannot sufficiently wonder that such ignorance could be feigned and palmed off concerning Cyprian by those more recent writers, for no one more than they has painted the profound erudition of Cyprian in ecclesiastical matters in livelier colours, and displayed it with greater noise and effort. To extol it you would say that all the monuments of Supreme Pontiffs, councils, holy Fathers, historians, and poets were almost exhausted; sacred and profane, all things from every side have been sought out, seized upon, and cited; after so many labours have been undergone to illustrate and manifest the learning of Cyprian, who would believe it? They pronounce Cyprian ignorant of that custom of the Church which, by their own confession, embraced a chief dogma of our faith! Behold the unexpected conclusion of so many praises of the learning of Cyprian: Cyprian was ignorant of the custom of the Church which regarded a chief head of our faith! Thus at the nod of these men Cyprian is learned and ignorant, sharp-sighted and obtuse—most sharp-sighted to recognize the few bishops favouring him, most obtuse to be ignorant of the innumerable ones opposed to him; for hunting out followers time is abundantly supplied to Cyprian, whereas for uncovering adversaries the ten years during which he ruled the Church of Carthage could not suffice! Thus do men sprinkle empty darkness over clear matters, worthy assuredly to experience every utmost absurdity. Let their dirges therefore now yield to our arguments, and let us all as sensible men say with truthful mouth that Cyprian knew well that the custom of not rebaptizing heretics which Stephen the Roman Pontiff vindicated was at that time the universal custom of the Church, or, to use the words of Augustine, "that Cyprian beheld this custom everywhere and universal."

Denique noverat et Cyprianus hanc consuetudinem ab omnibus episcopis antiquitus, id est ante Agrippinum, servatam fuisse. Qui enim Agrippinum censebat primum rebaptizationis parentem, necessario agnoscebat neminem episcoporum ante Agrippinum rebaptizasse, et consequenter ab omnibus episcopis servatam olim fuisse, quam Stephanus R. P. urgebat consuetudinem. Porro S. Cyprianus, ut supra probavimus, Agrippinum censebat primum rebaptizationis parentem.

Finally, Cyprian knew also that this custom had of old, that is, before Agrippinus, been kept by all bishops. For he who judged Agrippinus the first parent of rebaptism necessarily recognized that no one of the bishops before Agrippinus had rebaptized, and consequently that the custom which Stephen the Roman Pontiff urged had formerly been kept by all bishops. Now St. Cyprian, as we proved above, judged Agrippinus the first parent of rebaptism.

Et vero veterem hanc universalis Ecclesiae consuetudinem Cypriano notam fuisse testatur saepius

And in truth that this ancient custom of the universal Church was known to Cyprian, Augustine quite often testifies:

Editors' notes and page, col. 1410

Page

running head: RECENTIORUM EXCURSUS. 1410
marginal letters: A cuisset magis novae; B conatu ostentavit. Ad; C innumeros sibi adversos; D nem ab omnibus
old-edition numerals: 1356 before non
other: editors' matter: cuisset magis... saepius (entire column); word split from preceding column: cuisset (placuisset)

PL 3:1411

Augustinus: « Verumtamen, inquit lib. III de Bapt. cap. 5, quae soleret esse Ecclesiae consuetudo satis idem Cyprianus ostendit, qui ait in praeteritum de haeresi ad Ecclesiam venientes sine baptismo admissos. » Et lib. V, cap. 17: « Cypriano visum est aliter suscipiendos ab haereticis venientes, quam vel in praeteritum suscipiebantur sicut ipse testatur, vel nunc suscipiuntur. » Et cap. 19: « Et ideo si vetus haec erat consuetudo, ut ab haereticis venientes in eodem Christi baptismo quem foris acceperant susciperentur, quod nec ipsi qui contra disserebant (Cyprianus et alii) negare potuerunt. » Et in Epist. 93, ad Vincentium Rogatistam, cap. 10: « Si enim Sacramenta cum peccatoribus communicando, sicut putatis, periit Ecclesia, quae fuerat in orbe terrarum jam prius tota perierat, cum, sicut dicit Cyprianus, in eam sine baptismo admittebantur, ac sic nec ipse Cyprianus habebat in qua Ecclesia nasceretur. »

"Nevertheless," says he in book 3 On Baptism, chapter 5, "what was wont to be the custom of the Church the same Cyprian sufficiently shows, who says that in the past those coming from heresy to the Church were admitted without baptism." And book 5, chapter 17: "To Cyprian it seemed good that those coming from heretics should be received otherwise than either in the past they were received, even as he himself testifies, or now are received." And chapter 19: "And therefore so old was this custom, that those coming from heretics should be received in the same baptism of Christ which they had received outside, that not even those themselves who discoursed against it (Cyprian and the others) were able to deny it." And in Letter 93, To Vincentius the Rogatist, chapter 10: "For if by communicating the Sacraments with sinners, even as you think, the Church perished, she that had been in the whole world had already previously wholly perished when, even as Cyprian says, men were admitted into her without baptism, and thus not even Cyprian himself had a Church wherein he might be born."

Praeterea, ut supra vidimus, Cyprianus agnoscebat, et confitebatur quae ipsi opponebatur Ecclesiae

Besides, as we saw above, Cyprian recognized and confessed the custom of the Church which was opposed to him.

consuetudinem. Porro Cypriano objiciebatur non tantum quae tunc temporis vigebat, sed etiam praeterita, et antiqua Ecclesiae consuetudo, ut patet ex textibus allatis, ac ex iis Cypriani verbis ad Jubaian. scribentis: « Sed dicit aliquis: Quid ergo fiet de iis qui in praeteritum de haeresi ad Ecclesiam venientes sine baptismo admissi sunt? » — « Potens est Dominus misericordia sua indulgentiam dare, et eos qui ad Ecclesiam simpliciter admissi sunt et in Ecclesia dormierunt, ab Ecclesiae suae muneribus non separare. Non tamen quia aliquando erratum est, ideo semper errandum est. »

Now there was objected to Cyprian not only the custom which flourished at that time, but also the past and ancient custom of the Church, as is plain from the texts alleged, and from these words of Cyprian writing to Jubaianus: "Yet someone says: What then will become of those who in the past coming from heresy to the Church were admitted without baptism?" — "The Lord is able by His mercy to grant indulgence, and not to separate from the gifts of His Church those who have been simply admitted to the Church and have fallen asleep in the Church. Yet not because men have once erred must they therefore always err."

Ex quibus omnibus constat S. Cyprianum apprime novisse consuetudinem haereticos non rebaptizandi tum suis, tum praeteritis temporibus fuisse consuetudinem Ecclesiae, haud ignorasse S. Doctorem a Stephano Rom. pontifice et a longe majori episcoporum parte tunc temporis eam servari, ac antiquitus, id est ante Aprippinum ab omnibus episcopis servatam fuisse.

From all of which it is established that St. Cyprian knew exceedingly well that the custom of not rebaptizing heretics was both in his own and in past times the custom of the Church, and that the holy Doctor was not ignorant that it was kept at that time by Stephen the Roman pontiff and by far the greater part of the bishops, and that of old, that is, before Agrippinus, it had been kept by all bishops.

Editors' notes and page, col. 1411

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: Marcellino Molkenbuhr› · call in col 1411 (title heading)

Binas Dissertationes Monasterii Westphalorum 1790 in 4° edidit vir clarissimus F. Marcellinus Molkenbuhr ordinis S. Francisci strictioris observantiæ SS. Theologiæ lector jubilatus, provinciæ Saxoniæ S. Crucis minister actualis, quarum sequens titulus: Binæ Dissertationes; I, De S. Firmiliani Cæsariensis in Cappadocia episcopi Epistola ad S. Stephanum, aliisque ejus operibus; II, De anno quo mortuus fuerit Firmilianus, seu Paulus Samosatenus in synodo Antiochena fuerit condemnatus. Titulo subjunxit in pagina altera, ex epistola 92 ad Vincent. Rogat., hæc S. Augustini verba. « Quamquam non desint qui hoc Cyprianum prorsus non sensisse contendant, sed sub ejus nomine a præsumptoribus atque mendacibus fuisse confictum. » Scopus clarissimi auctoris est in prima dissertatione, post inanes Christiani Lupi et Raymundi Missorii conatus, denuo verosimile reddere S. Firmiliani Epistolam ad Cyprianum (probabilius est error typographi Epistolam ad Stephanum, hanc enim tota antiquitas ignorat) haud genuinam esse, sed a Donatista Afro eidem suppositam sæculo V, et quidem post Augustini tempora. LUMPER.

The most distinguished Fr. Marcellinus Molkenbuhr, of the Order of St Francis of the Stricter Observance, jubilee lector of Sacred Theology and serving minister of the Saxon Province of the Holy Cross, published Two Dissertations at Münster in Westphalia in 1790, in quarto, under the following title: Two Dissertations: I, On the Letter of St Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, to St Stephen, and his other works; II, On the year in which Firmilian died, or in which Paul of Samosata was condemned at the synod of Antioch. Beneath the title, on the facing page, he added these words of St Augustine from Letter 92, to Vincentius Rogatus: “Although there are some who contend that Cyprian did not hold this at all, but that it was forged under his name by presumptuous and lying men.” The distinguished author's aim in the first dissertation, after the vain attempts of Christianus Lupus and Raymundus Missorius, is to make it likely once again that St Firmilian's Letter to Cyprian (Letter to Stephen is more probably a printer's error, for all antiquity knows nothing of such a letter) is not genuine, but was foisted on him by an African Donatist in the fifth century, and indeed after Augustine's time. LUMPER.

(printed under page 757)

(2) ‹anchor: sederit Antiochiæ› · call in col 1411

Omnino penes hunc auctorem sit ea quam profitetur de S. Petri Anthiocheno episcopatu opinio cui adhærendi nec cæteris scriptoribus catholicis, nec nobis, animus est. EDD.

Let the opinion this author professes on St Peter's episcopate at Antioch remain entirely his own; neither the other Catholic writers nor we have any mind to adhere to it. THE EDITORS.

(printed under page 757)