PL 3 · cols. 1017–1024

P. Coustant, O.S.B., Notitia epistolarum non exstantium quae ad Stephanum attinent

Editors' preface

PL 3:1017

NOTITIA

AN ACCOUNT

EPISTOLARUM NON EXSTANTIUM AD QUAE AD STEPHANUM ATTINENT,

OF THE LETTERS NO LONGER EXTANT WHICH CONCERN STEPHEN,

AUCTORE D. COUSTANTIO. O. S. B.

BY DOM COUSTANT, O.S.B.

1. Faustini Lugdunensis episcopi ac caeterorum ejusdem provinciae episcoporum ad Stephanum papam

1. The letter of Faustinus, bishop of Lyons, and of the other bishops of the same province, to Pope Stephen,

Editors' notes and page, col. 1017

Footnotes

(?) ‹anchor: not on this page; the note begins on the previous page› · call not visible […]pserat, emendarent, haereses exstirparent, vitia corrigerent, ac demum orthodoxae fidei dogmata confirmarent. Aquariorum haeresin aquam duntaxat in sacrificio offerentium, Cyprianus epistola 63, ad Coelium scripta, refutat, dicens, hos persecutione vigente summo mane, seu potius nocturno tempore, ad sacram synaxin convenientes, loco vini aquam obtulisse, ne scilicet Christi sanguinem in specie vini bibentes odore vini velut quodam Christianitatis indicio proderentur. Baron. anno 257, num. 9, 10 et 11. Cum Martianus Arelatensis episcopus in Gallia hoc tempore Novatiano plurimum studeret, multos etiam in ejusdem errorem induxisset, Faustinus Lugdunensis episcopus cum Cypriano et reliquis coepiscopis Galliae, per litteras ad Stephanum scriptas (Cypriani infra exstant) sollicite petivit, ut is ex officio et munere Martianum Novatiani sectarium e sede deponeret, et alium in ejus locum substitueret. Baron. anno 258, num 8. 9 et 10. Sub hoc pontifice apud catholicae Ecclesiae episcopos et doctores gravissima controversia moveri ac disputari coepta est, haec : An Baptismus quem minister haereticus secundum legitimam Ecclesiae catholicae formam, ac debitam ministri intentionem, scilicet, in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti, contulisset, invalidus sit, ideoque iterandus, quod a ministro haeretico administratus sit? Cyprianus cum Firmiliano Asiae, aliisque plurimis Orientalibus episcopis, id non modo affirmavit, verum etiam habitis hac de re plurimis in Africa conciliis idem aliquoties confirmavit, unum esse Baptismum, qui extra unam Ecclesiam catholicam non inveniatur. Stephanus vero Romanae Ecclesiae pontifex, docens antiquam apostolicam traditionem esse, qua baptizati ab haereticis, sola manuum impositione recipiebantur, ideoque, ut inquit Vincentius Lirinensis, contra haeres. cap. 9, nihil hac in re innovandum, sed omnino id quod ab Apostolis traditum est tenendum esse docens; Apostolicam traditionem velut quemdam murum inexpugnabilem, eorum sententiis opposuit, eaque fere sola fretus, illum Baptismum ratum, validum, et nequaquam reiterandum esse definivit, quem minister haereticus juxta formam a Christo praescriptam, et ab Ecclesia usurpatam, contulisset. Ad hanc sententiam Stephani pontificis non modo omnes fere Patres Africani, verum etiam ii qui propugnatores erant contrarii dogmatis Firmilianus, Dionysius, et Cyprianus accesserunt, quod ex Augustino, epist. 48, ad Vincent, et de Baptism. contra Donat. 5, cap. 2, item ex Hiero- […]

[…] had [crept in], they should amend, root out heresies, correct vices, and finally confirm the dogmas of the orthodox faith. The heresy of the Aquarians, who offered only water in the sacrifice, Cyprian refutes in Letter 63, written to Coelius [i.e. Caecilius], saying that these, coming together to the sacred synaxis very early in the morning, or rather at night, while persecution raged, offered water in place of wine, so that, drinking the blood of Christ under the species of wine, they should not be betrayed by the smell of the wine as by some sign of Christianity. Baronius, year 257, nos. 9, 10 and 11. When Martianus, bishop of Arles in Gaul, was at this time greatly devoted to Novatian, and had also led many into the same error, Faustinus, bishop of Lyons, with Cyprian and the other fellow bishops of Gaul, by letters written to Stephen (Cyprian's are extant below), earnestly asked that he should, by virtue of his office and charge, depose Martianus, a sectary of Novatian, from his see and put another in his place. Baronius, year 258, nos. 8, 9 and 10. Under this pontiff a very grave controversy began to be stirred and disputed among the bishops and doctors of the Catholic Church, namely this: Whether a Baptism which a heretical minister has conferred according to the lawful form of the Catholic Church and with the due intention of the minister, that is, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is invalid, and therefore to be repeated, because it was administered by a heretical minister? Cyprian, with Firmilian of Asia and very many other Eastern bishops, not only affirmed this, but, having held very many councils in Africa on the matter, confirmed the same more than once: that there is one Baptism, which is not found outside the one Catholic Church. But Stephen, pontiff of the Roman Church, teaching that it was the ancient apostolic tradition that those baptized by heretics were received by the imposition of hands alone, and therefore, as Vincent of Lérins says (Against Heresies, ch. 9), teaching that nothing was to be innovated in this matter, but that what had been handed down by the Apostles was wholly to be held, set the Apostolic tradition against their opinions like an impregnable wall; and, relying almost on that alone, he defined that Baptism to be ratified, valid and in no way to be repeated which a heretical minister had conferred according to the form prescribed by Christ and used by the Church. To this judgement of the pontiff Stephen not only almost all the African Fathers but also those who had been champions of the contrary doctrine, Firmilian, Dionysius and Cyprian, came over, as is evident from Augustine, Letter 48, to Vincent, and On Baptism against the Donatists 5, ch. 2, and likewise from Jero- […]

(?) ‹anchor: not visible; the note's opening lies above the crop› · call not visible […] catalogus docent, Volusiano et Maximino, seu potius Maximo, consulibus, hoc est anno Christi 263. Ille laudato Husebio teste lib. VII, c. 5, cui et Hieronymus concinit in Chronico, Ecclesiam biennio administravit. Bucherinus, catalogus, licet ei sedis annos IX, menses II, dies XXI, attribuat, ad Eusebianum tamen calculum accedit, quatenus ejus obitum Valeriano III et Gallieno II consulibus, hoc est anno Christi 255, consignat. In fronte Kalendarii, quod praedictus Bucherius vulgavit, S. Stephani depositio IV Nonas Augustini in Callisti coemeterio notatur. Eodem die festivitatem ejus, fit nunc, ita et olim celebratam esse vetera monumenta fidem faciunt. Si tamen concilium Carthaginiense III, de iis qui ab haeresi ad Ecclesiam veniunt, quod epistolam Stephani ad Cyprianum proxime excepit, anno 256, ut vulgo eruditi putant, habitum est, Stephani mors non Valeriano III et Gallieno II, uti Bucherianus catalogus prae se fert, sed Valeriano IV et Gallieno III, ut in Pontificali Libro exstat, hoc est anno 257, consignanda erit. Et cum hac quidem epocha facilius componuntur tum qui Papae huic Bucheriano in catalogo tribuuntur quatuor pontificatus anni, tum quod de illius martyrio traditur. Anno quippe 255, Ecclesia, ut Dionysius Alexandrinus auctor est, summa pace fruebatur. Quocirca Antonius Pagius, Tillemontius aliique Stephani mortem in annum 257 differunt. COUSTANT.

[…] catalogue[s] state, in the consulship of Volusianus and Maximinus, or rather Maximus, that is, in the year of Christ 263. He, on the testimony of the Eusebius cited (book 7, ch. 5), with whom Jerome also agrees in his Chronicle, governed the Church for two years. The Bucherian catalogue, although it assigns him 9 years, 2 months and 21 days in the see, nevertheless comes close to the Eusebian reckoning in that it records his death in the consulship of Valerian for the 3rd time and Gallienus for the 2nd, that is, in the year of Christ 255. At the head of the Calendar which the said Bucherius published, the burial of St Stephen is noted on the 4th day before the Nones of August [printed "Augustini"] in the cemetery of Callistus. Ancient records attest that his feast was celebrated on that same day of old, as it is now. If, however, the third council of Carthage, on those who come from heresy to the Church, which followed closely on Stephen's letter to Cyprian, was held in the year 256, as the learned commonly think, then Stephen's death must be placed not under Valerian III and Gallienus II, as the Bucherian catalogue displays, but under Valerian IV and Gallienus III, as it stands in the Pontifical Book, that is, in the year 257. And indeed with this date both the four years of pontificate assigned to this Pope in the Bucherian catalogue and what is handed down about his martyrdom are more easily reconciled. For in the year 255, as Dionysius of Alexandria testifies, the Church enjoyed perfect peace. Accordingly Antoine Pagi, Tillemont and others defer Stephen's death to the year 257. COUSTANT.

(printed under page 560)

(3) ‹anchor: Valerianam quarto› · call not visible

Valerianam quarto, etc. Eodem quarto consulatu Valeriani, acta sancti Stephani emendatiora consignata sunt. Quod autem in quibusdam ponatur Valeriani consulatus tertius, Gallieni secundus, mendosum esse probat Baronius anno Christi 260, num. 2. SEVER. BINIUS.

Valerian for the fourth time, etc. The more correct acts of St Stephen are dated to this same fourth consulship of Valerian. That some copies give the third consulship of Valerian and the second of Gallienus is shown to be faulty by Baronius, year of Christ 260, no. 2. SEVERIN BINIUS.

(printed under page 560)

Page

running head: 1017 NOTITIA EPIST. S. STEPH. NO (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A Martyrio coronatur. Fuit temporibus; B vini bibentes odore vini (in the Variorum notae); C liano Asiae, aliisque plurimis (in the Variorum notae); D etiam ii qui propugnatores (in the Variorum notae)
old-edition numerals: 985 after levitas
other: a full-width band stands across cols 1017/1018 in mid-page: the 1 paragraph(s) above it in col 1018 are set here, after the 1 above it in col 1017 (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 [QA Q2: stale receipt wording; what stands above the band in both columns (end of the life of Stephen, Variae lectiones, Variorum notae) belongs to the previous unit and is NOT set in the part; the part holds only the band and this unit's text below it]
other: the column opens with the end of the previous work (another unit); not set here: the unit begins at I.
other (QA Q1): the band's second line prints "EPISTOLARUM NON EXSTANTIUM AD QUÆ AD STEPHANUM ATTINENT," with a stray first "AD" (misprint for "QUAE AD"); the third line prints "AUCTORE D. COUSTANTIO. O. S. B." Set as printed at the settle step.
running head: 1017 NOTITIA EPIST. S. STEPH. NON EXSTANTIUM. 1018
marginal letters: A ‹Martyrio coronatur. Fuit temporibus› (left) / ‹nationes duas per mensem› (right); B ‹obtulisse, ne scilicet› / ‹rum, quantaque Petri›; C ‹liano Asiae, aliisque› / ‹tatur. Eodem die›; D ‹etiam ii qui propugnatores› / ‹consignata sunt›
old-edition numerals: 985 after ‹levitas› (upper text, preceding unit); 986 after ‹quinque,› (upper text, preceding unit)
other: the upper part of the page (end of the Liber Pontificalis text on Stephen, Variae lectiones, and the Variorum notae) belongs to the preceding unit and is not set here; this unit's text begins at the full-width title band. 'pa-' at the line end of the left column joins 'pam' at the top of the right column: set whole here as 'papam'. The note opening at 'catalogus docent' (n1017) was not written in this pass: only the c-files were assigned. The whole unit is editors' prose (Coustant).

PL 3:1018

litterae, quibus Marcianum Arelatensem episcopum Novatiano sese conjuxisse, ac durissimam haeresis illius tenere pravitatem, atque ab episcoporum

in which [they reported] that Marcianus, bishop of Arles, had joined himself to Novatian and held the most harsh depravity of that heresy, and that he had departed from the consensus of the

Editors' notes and page, col. 1018

Page

running head: S. STEPH. NON EXSTANTIUM. 1018 (left part of the running head cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A ‹nationes duas per mensem›; B ‹rum, quantaque Petri successori› (in the notes); C ‹tatur. Eodem die festivitatem› (in the notes); D ‹consignata sunt. Quod autem› (in the notes)
old-edition numerals: 986 after ‹quinque,›
other: column begins with "nationes", rest of "ordi-nationes" broken from the column before; full-width lines not set: the headings "Variae lectiones." and "Variorum notae." below the text, and the title lines "NOTITIA / ...UM AD QUAE AD STEPHANUM ATTINENT, / ...COUSTANTIO. O. S. B." above the last paragraph; the Variorum notae at the page foot (Binius, Coustant; incl. note (3)) not set, for the later pass; editors' matter set: Coustant's Notitia, beginning "pam litterae" (first word the end of "pa-pam" broken from the column before); "conjuxisse": the n of the printed word is unclear and may read "corjuxisse", UNSURE; column ends mid-word "episco-"
other: the 1 paragraph(s) of this column above the full-width band are set under col 1017 (reading order, moved on receipt)
other: the word episcoporum was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 1019
running head: 1017 NOTITIA EPIST. S. STEPH. NON EXSTANTIUM. 1018
marginal letters: A ‹nationes duas per mensem›; B ‹rum, quantaque Petri›; C ‹tatur. Eodem die›; D ‹consignata sunt. Quod autem› (all beside the upper text of the preceding unit)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the column ends at the page foot with 'episco-' split across the column break; the next page was not in hand, so the visible part is set and the word must be joined on receipt. '[they reported]' supplies the governing verb, which falls after the break. Editors' prose (Coustant) is this unit's text.
misprints kept as printed: "conjuxisse" for "conjunxisse" (the second n is missing in the print; the third letter of the printed word is damaged and may read r, UNSURE) (Q3)

PL 3:1019

consensione discessisse nuntiabunt. Eo autem audaciae proruperat Marcianus, ut de collegio sacerdotum, qui lapsis, post debitam poenitentiam, pacem dandam censebant, judicare eosque a se segregare non timeret, cum ab his ipse necdum abstentus videretur. De eadem re Faustinus idem semel et iterum ad Cyprianum scripsit (Epist. I, ad Steph., n. 1). Quod ideo factum suspicantur nonnulli, ut cum Faustinus ac socii nihil a Stephano obtinuissent, ejus opera vel monitis suppetias Catholicis episcopis impetrarent. Nempe qui summis rebus praesident, ubi nonnullas vel prae nimia occupatione vel pro prudentia differre compelluntur, saepe culpantur ut segnes, ubi vero diligentiam adhibent, vix vitare queunt praecipitis animi suspicionem. Ad Cyprianum quod attinet, adeo non dubitavit, quin Stephanus 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 simul roget (Ibid. n. 3 et 5). Hujusmodi autem litteras a Stephano missas fuisse hoc indicio est, quod in Arelatensibus diptychis, ut jam observavimus, Marciani nomen non comparet. Quod in negotio Cyprianus suum ipse pro omnibus Ecclesiis studium ac sollicitudinem comprobans, Romani pontificis tum ad dimovendum de sede sua Arelatensem episcopum, tum ad alium ei subrogandum auctoritatem haud dubio testimonio agnovit. Neque enim audiendus videtur recens Annalium Cyprianicorum scriptor, cujus sententia nihil « nihil a Stephano postulabat Cyprianus » (cum illi auctor erat ut litteras ad provinciam mitteret), « quod ipse praestare paratus non erat, » nisi subaudiatur, « si in eadem sede ac loco fuisset. »

bishops. Marcianus, moreover, had broken out into such audacity that he did not fear to pass judgement on the college of priests who held that peace should be given to the lapsed after due penance, and to separate them from himself, although he himself did not yet appear to have been excluded from communion by them. On the same matter the same Faustinus wrote once and again to Cyprian (Letter 1 to Stephen, n. 1). Some suspect that this was done so that, since Faustinus and his associates had obtained nothing from Stephen, they might secure help for the Catholic bishops through his efforts or admonitions. Indeed, those who preside over the highest affairs, when they are compelled to defer some matters either through excessive business or out of prudence, are often blamed as sluggish, but when they apply diligence, they can scarcely avoid the suspicion of a hasty mind. As for Cyprian, he was so far from doubting that Stephen, by his counsel and exhortation, would send letters to the province and people of Arles, in which he would order both that Marcianus be excluded from communion and that another bishop be substituted in his place, that he asks at the same time that it be made known to him who has been substituted (ibid., n. 3 and 5). That letters of this kind were sent by Stephen is indicated by the fact that in the diptychs of Arles, as we have already observed, the name of Marcianus does not appear. In this affair Cyprian, while himself giving proof of his zeal and solicitude on behalf of all the Churches, acknowledged by no doubtful testimony the authority of the Roman pontiff both to remove the bishop of Arles from his see and to put another in his place. For the recent writer of the Cyprianic Annals does not seem worth hearing, in whose opinion "nothing" "Cyprian asked nothing of Stephen" (when he was urging him to send letters to the province) "which he himself was not prepared to perform," unless one understands "if he had been in the same see and place."

2. Faustini ad Stephanum litteras ad primum hujus pontificis annum referri nihil vetat. Eas certe ante obortam de Baptismo haereticorum controversiam scriptas esse liquet. Ambiguum enim non est quin haec ipsa controversia posterior sit epistola, quam postmodum Cyprianus ad Stephanum de Marciani causa scripsit. Hanc autem causam ad secundum Stephani annum jam adultum pertinere praedictus Annalium Cyprianicorum scriptor probat. Unde sequitur ut si quas suadebat Cyprianus litteras Stephanus ad Arelatenses miserit, hae non citius anno 254 exeunte conscriptae sint.

2. Nothing prevents the letter of Faustinus to Stephen from being assigned to the first year of this pontiff. It is certainly clear that it was written before the controversy over the Baptism of heretics arose. For there is no doubt that this very controversy is later than the letter which Cyprian afterwards wrote to Stephen about the case of Marcianus. And the aforesaid writer of the Cyprianic Annals proves that this case belongs to the second year of Stephen, when it was already well advanced. Whence it follows that, if Stephen sent to the people of Arles the letters which Cyprian was urging, these were written no earlier than the close of the year 254.

II.

3. Basilides, Legionis et Asturicae episcopus, cum ob idololatriae scelus aliaque crimina ab episcopatu depulsus esset, ejusque loco Sabinus fuisset suffectus, sese Romam ad Stephanum contulit, a quo ut in sedem suam restitueretur obtinuit. De hac re quid sentiret Cyprianus ita aperuit Ex Cypriano, epist. 68) : « Nec rescindere ordinationem jure perfectam (id.) potest, quod Basilides post crimina sua detecta, et conscientiam etiam propria confessione

3. Basilides, bishop of León and Astorga, when he had been driven from the episcopate for the crime of idolatry and other crimes, and Sabinus had been put in his place, betook himself to Rome to Stephen, from whom he obtained that he be restored to his see. What Cyprian thought of this matter he disclosed thus (from Cyprian, Letter 68): "Nor can it rescind an ordination rightly completed (the same), that Basilides, after his crimes had been detected, and his conscience even by his own confession

Editors' notes and page, col. 1019

Footnotes

(none)  (printed under page 561)

Page

running head: 1019 S. STEPHANUS PAPA E[T...] (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A ‹porum consensione discessisse›; B ‹bitavit, quin Stephanus› (printed between this line and the one above); C ‹cujus sententia nihil›; D ‹nus litteras Stephanus ad Arelatenses›
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column begins mid-word with "porum" (rest of [episco]porum from previous column); "nuntiabunt" printed, nuntiabant likely intended (unsure); "nihil « nihil" doubled as printed; opening parenthesis missing before "Ex Cypriano" as printed; last word "confes-" broken across the column break; "Epist. I" printed in small capitals

PL 3:1020

nudatam Romam pergens, Stephanum collegam nostrum longe positum, et gestae rei ac tacitae veritatis ignarum fefellit, ut exambiret reponi se injuste in episcopatum, de quo fuerat juste depositus. Hoc eo pertinet, ut Basilidis non tam abolita sint, quam cumulata delicta, ut ad superiora peccata ejus, etiam fallaciae et circumventionis scelus accesserit. Neque enim tam culpandus est ille cui negligenter obreptum est, quam hic exsecrandus qui fraudulenter obrepsit: » ut scilicet litteras obtineret, quibus et communio et sedes ipsi redderentur. Neutrum enim ipsi sine litteris, quae et judicii Stephani, et sibi ab eo indultae communionis testes essent, sperandum fuerat. Eum autem non tantum Stephani communionem, sed et episcopatum, et eum quidem quo dejectus fuerat, exambiisse proxime relata Cypriani verba persuadent. Quorsum enim Sabini in ipsius locum subrogati ordinationem rescindere, rei gestae tacita veritate, tentasset, nisi ut ad eam sedem rediret, unde se injuste dejectum mentiebatur?

laid bare, going to Rome, deceived Stephen our colleague, who was placed far away and ignorant of what had been done and of the truth that had been kept silent, so that he canvassed to be restored unjustly to the episcopate from which he had been justly deposed. The effect of this is that the offences of Basilides have not so much been wiped out as heaped up, so that to his former sins there has been added also the crime of deceit and circumvention. For he is not so much to be blamed upon whom an imposture was negligently practised, as this man is to be execrated who fraudulently practised it: » namely, so that he might obtain letters by which both communion and his see would be restored to him. For he could have hoped for neither without letters, which would be witnesses both of Stephen's judgement and of the communion granted to him by him. But that he canvassed not only for Stephen's communion but also for the episcopate, and indeed for the very one from which he had been cast down, the words of Cyprian quoted just above make clear. For to what end would he have attempted, with the truth of what had been done kept silent, to rescind the ordination of Sabinus, who had been substituted in his place, unless in order to return to that see from which he falsely claimed he had been unjustly cast out?

4. Observat Pamelius « hunc locum pro Romani pontificis auctoritate facere, utpote quo conste⟨t⟩, episcopos sede dejectos in Hispaniis solere ad illum recurrere. » Cui observationi novum pondus accederet, si et Martialem Emeritensem episcopum eodem tempore ab episcopatu submotum, quem Cyprianus fallacia pariter usum esse notat, ut abrogatam sibi dignitatem usurparet, hanc ipsius Stephani auctoritate vindicare sibi voluisse constaret. His praeiverat exemplum Privati Lambesitani episcopi, qui « mob ulta gravia delicta nonaginta episcoporum sententia condemnatus (Cypr. Epist. XII, n. 10). « Romam legatum miserat, ut, Sede vacante, vel a clero ejus furto et fraudulenter litteras elicere curaret. Unde Ecclesiae hujus auctoritas magis ac magis commendatur. Et hanc quidem licet non neget Cyprianus, hujusmodi tamen provocationum incommoda non silet, dum Stephanum velut longe positum et rei gestae ignarum, ideoque deceptum repraesentat (Cypr., Epist. XXX). Quocirca superius. Epist. XII, n. 14, ad Cornelium scripsit, ab omnibua qui secum sunt statutum esse, « ut uniuscujusque causa illic audiatur, ubi est crimen admissum, ubi et accusatores habere et testes criminis sui possint. » Sensit et postea aequissimus pontifex Gregorius idem incommodum: ideoque Petri cujusdam episcopi Numidae, qui damnatus ad ipsum confuerat, ad ejusdem provinciae praesules causam detulit. Sic ea de re ad Columbum Numidiae episcopum loquitur: « Indicamus itaque Sanctitati Ves⟨t⟩rae, venisse ad nos quemdam Petrum nomine, qui se asserit fuisse episcopum, atque causae suae a nobis remedium postulasse. Et prius quidem retulit quae digna esse miseratione potuissent: sed requirentes, postea multo aliter quam indicavit invenimus, et vehementer ejus actio nos contristavit. Sed quia causae ipsius interna subtiliter nequaquam addiscere, tam lsngo itineris intervallo

4. Pamelius observes « that this passage tells in favour of the authority of the Roman pontiff, inasmuch as it shows that bishops cast out of their see in the Spains were accustomed to have recourse to him. » New weight would be added to this observation if it were established that Martial too, bishop of Emerita, removed from the episcopate at the same time, whom Cyprian notes to have likewise used deceit in order to usurp the dignity taken away from him, wished to claim this dignity for himself by the authority of Stephen himself. The example of Privatus, bishop of Lambesis, had gone before them, who, « condemned for many grave offences by the sentence of ninety bishops (Cypr. Ep. 12, n. 10). « had sent a legate to Rome, in order that, the See being vacant, he might take care to elicit letters, even from its clergy, by theft and fraudulently. Whence the authority of this Church is commended more and more. And although Cyprian does not deny this authority, he nevertheless does not keep silent about the drawbacks of appeals of this kind, while he represents Stephen as placed far away and ignorant of what had been done, and therefore deceived (Cypr., Ep. 30). Wherefore above. In Ep. 12, n. 14, to Cornelius, he wrote that it had been decreed by all who are with him « that each person's case should be heard there where the crime was committed, where they can have both accusers and witnesses of their crime. » Afterwards too the most equitable pontiff Gregory perceived the same drawback: and therefore he referred the case of a certain Peter, a bishop of Numidia, who after being condemned had fled to him, to the prelates of the same province. Thus he speaks on this matter to Columbus, bishop of Numidia: « We therefore indicate to Your Holiness that a certain man named Peter has come to us, who asserts that he was a bishop, and has asked of us a remedy for his case. And at first he related things which could have been worthy of pity: but on inquiring, we afterwards found things to be very different from what he indicated, and his conduct greatly saddened us. But since the inner details of his case by no means to learn precisely, by so long an interval of journey

Editors' notes and page, col. 1020

Page

running head: …NUS PAPA ET MARTYR. 1020
marginal letters: A sione nudatam Romam pergens; B tum, et eum quidem quo dejectus; C scopi, qui « mob ulta gravia; D simus pontifex Gregorius idem
old-edition numerals: 987 after Cyprianus
other: running head is printed across the page and cut off at the left edge of the image; only "NUS PAPA ET MARTYR." is visible. Column begins with "sione", the end of "confes-sione" broken from column 1019. Column ends with "in-" broken across the column break. "conste⟨t⟩" final letter damaged, looks like l; "Ves⟨t⟩rae" t damaged. "scelus" printed with a weak c (looks like soelus), set scelus. Whole column is editors' matter: dissertation on Basilides and Martial's appeal to Stephen (editors' matter: ‹sione nudatam Romam pergens›; ‹4. Observat Pamelius›). Opening « before "Romam legatum" set as printed.

PL 3:1021

disjuncti, potuimus; eam, incerti quippe, definire nequivimus, etc. (Lib. VI. Ind. 14. Epist. 37, n. 2). » Alia hujusmodi praetereo. Ad Basilidis autem negotium quod attinet, hanc in eo toto prae se fert Cyprianus agendi rationem, ut sententiae eorum qui illud celebrem de haereticorum Baptismo controversiam praecessisse censent, haud illibenter accedam.

separated, were we able; being indeed uncertain, we were unable to determine it, etc. (Book 6, Indiction 14, Letter 37, n. 2)" Other things of this kind I pass over. As for the affair of Basilides, Cyprian displays throughout it such a manner of proceeding that I not unwillingly join the opinion of those who hold that it preceded the celebrated controversy on the Baptism of heretics.

III.

5. Nil etiam vetat, quominus ad id tempus, quod praedictam controversiam praecessit, litteras illas referamus, quas a Stephano ad Syrias et Arabiam scriptas esse Dionysius Alexandrinus in superiori fragmento memorat. Ille quidem quid in eis tractaretur silet: verum valde probabile est, Stephanum provinciarum illarum penuriam, necessaria eis suppeditando, sublevare non contentum, etiam fidelium animos benignis ac salubribus scriptis solari et ad pietatem excitare studuisse. Praeterea loquendi ei ampla erat materia ex occasione schismatis Novatiani, quod in provincias illas pervaserat, et cujus labem in illis prorsus emaculatam esse postmodum Dionysius nuntiavit.

5. Nothing prevents us, either, from assigning to the time which preceded the aforesaid controversy those letters which Dionysius of Alexandria, in the fragment above, records were written by Stephen to the Syrias and Arabia. He, indeed, is silent about what was treated in them; but it is very probable that Stephen, not content with relieving the want of those provinces by supplying them with necessities, was also eager to console the minds of the faithful with kindly and wholesome writings and to stir them to piety. Moreover, he had ample matter for speaking on the occasion of the Novatian schism, which had spread into those provinces, and whose stain Dionysius afterwards announced had been wholly cleansed away in them.

IV.

6. Vix Helenus Tarsi episcopus cum tota Cilicia, et Firmilianus cum Cappadocia universa ac finitimis regionibus, Novatiani novitatem detestantes, ad unitatem Ecclesiae regressi erant, cum in novum dissidium abierunt, non enim ab ea altera opinione divelli se sciverunt, quae haereticos ad Ecclesiam redeuntes baptizari praefracte volebat. Quapropter Stephanus, inquit Eusebius, « litteras scripsit de Heleno et de Firmiliano, de omnibus denique sacerdotibus per Ciliciam, Cappadociam, cunctasque finitimas provincias constitutis, quibus denuntiabat sese ob eam causam ab illorum communione discessurum, quod haereticos rebaptizarent » (Euseb. lib. VII, Hist., c. 5). Quas litteras sugillans Firmilianus, de illis ad Cyprianum ita loquitur: « Quid enim humilius aut lenius, quam cum tot episcopis per totum mundum dissensisse, pacem cum singulis vario discordiae genere rumpentem, modo cum Orientalibus, quod nec vos latere confidimus, modo vobiscum, qui in meridie estis? » (Apud Cypr. sub fin Ep. LXXV.).

6. Scarcely had Helenus, bishop of Tarsus, with all Cilicia, and Firmilian with the whole of Cappadocia and the neighbouring regions, detesting the novelty of Novatian, returned to the unity of the Church, when they went off into a new dissension; for they did not know how to let themselves be torn away from that other opinion which obstinately insisted that heretics returning to the Church be baptized. Wherefore Stephen, says Eusebius, "wrote letters concerning Helenus and concerning Firmilian, and finally concerning all the priests established throughout Cilicia, Cappadocia and all the neighbouring provinces, in which he declared that he would withdraw from their communion for this reason, that they rebaptized heretics" (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book 7, ch. 5). Taunting these letters, Firmilian speaks of them to Cyprian thus: "For what is more humble or more gentle than to have disagreed with so many bishops throughout the whole world, breaking peace with each one by a different kind of discord, now with the Easterners, which we trust has not escaped you either, now with you who are in the south?" (In Cyprian, near the end of Letter 75).

7. Similes re ipsa tunc Cyprianus ab eodem Papa eadem de causa litteras acceperat, de quibus ille a Pompeio Sabratensi episcopo interrogatus, istud inter alia exscribit: « Si quis ergo a quacunque haeresi venerit ad nos, nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum est, ut manus illi imponatur in poenitentiam; cum ipsi haeretici proprie alterutrum ad se venientes non baptizent, sed communicent tantum » (Cypr. Epist. LXXIV). Haec autem verba non uni quaestioni occasionem dederunt. Verum ut controversiae

7. Cyprian had in fact at that time received similar letters from the same Pope for the same reason, and, being asked about them by Pompeius, bishop of Sabratha, he copies out this among other things: "If anyone, then, comes to us from any heresy whatever, let nothing be innovated except what has been handed down, namely that a hand be laid upon him unto penance; since the heretics themselves properly do not baptize one another when they come over to them, but only admit them to communion" (Cyprian, Letter 74). These words, however, have given occasion to more than one question. But in order that the controversies

Editors' notes and page, col. 1021

Footnotes

(none)  (printed under page 562)

Page

running head: 4021 NOTITIA EPIST. S. STEPH. NO[...] (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A ‹tervallo disjuncti, potuimus›; B ‹ctaretur silet : verum valde›; C ‹dissidium abierunt, non enim›; D ‹fin Ep. LXXV.›
old-edition numerals: 988 after ‹Papa›
other: whole column is editors' matter (Notitia on the letters of Stephen): ‹tervallo disjuncti, potuimus›, sections III, IV (‹Vix Helenus Tarsi›) and V (‹Similes re ipsa›); column begins mid-word (in-|tervallo) and mid-quotation; "eorum.qui" printed with a stray dot, taken as type debris and set "eorum qui", UNSURE; "Heleno" printed with damaged H (looks like "Ileleno"); last word "con-" split at column break; "sciverunt" set as printed

PL 3:1022

illae certius dirimantur, operae pretium fuerit et alia collegisse quae sive in iisdem litteris, sive in aliis ad Orientales, a Stephano scripta esse Firmilianus atque Cyprianus commemorant.

in question may be settled more surely, it will be worth the trouble to have gathered also the other things which Firmilian and Cyprian record were written by Stephen to the Easterners, whether in the same letter or in others.

8. Ad alterutrius epistolae exordium haud temere referatur quod Firmilianus notat his verbis : « Stephanus de episcopatus sui loco gloriatur, et se successionem Petri tenere contendit, super quem fundamenta Ecclesiae collata sunt. » Adeo ut Stephanus a sedis suae dignitate commendanda, quod et in hujusmodi negotiis successores illius imitati sunt, sermonis sui initium fecerit. At licet haec carpere videatur Firmilianus, procul tamen abest ut Ecclesiam a Christo super Petrum solidatam ac fundatam inficietur. Ipse etiam primum eidem Apostolo, ac deinde caeteris, peccatorum remittendorum potestatem datam esse agnoscit Quo posito, exinde concludit : « Potestas ergo peccatorum remittendorum apostolis data est, ecclesiis quas illi a Christo missi constituerunt, et episcopis qui eis ordinatione vicaria successerunt ; » adeoque privilegium Petri ad successores ejus manasse profitetur.

8. To the opening of one or the other of the two letters may not without reason be referred what Firmilian notes in these words: "Stephen glories in the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession of Peter, upon whom the foundations of the Church were laid." So Stephen made the beginning of his discourse by commending the dignity of his see, something his successors too have imitated in affairs of this kind. But although Firmilian seems to carp at these things, he is nevertheless far from denying that the Church was made firm and founded by Christ upon Peter. He himself even acknowledges that the power of forgiving sins was given first to that same Apostle, and then to the rest. Having laid this down, he then concludes: "The power, therefore, of forgiving sins was given to the apostles, to the churches which they, sent by Christ, established, and to the bishops who succeeded them by vicarious ordination;" and so he professes that the privilege of Peter flowed down to his successors.

9. Praeterea Stephanus, eodem Firmiliano teste, in litteris suis sic loquebatur, « quasi apostoli eos, qui ab haeresi veniant, baptizari prohibuerint, et hoc custodiendum posteris tradiderint. » Eidem Firmiliano displicet, « quod Stephanus et qui illi consentiunt, contendunt dimissionem peccatorum et secundam nativitatem in haereticorum Baptisma procedere, apud quos etiam ipsi confitentur Spiritum sanctum non esse ; simulque unum nobis atque haereticis baptisma esse volunt : item, quod non putant quaerendum esse quis sit ille qui baptizaverit, eo quod qui baptizaverit, gratiam consequi potuerit invocata Trinitate nominum Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti. » Tum pluribus interjectis, Stephannm non pudere ait « hoc asserere, ut per eos, qui cum ipsi in omnibus peccatis sint constituti, dicat posse remissionem peccatorum dari. » Notat et Stephanum cum sociis exemplo se Pauli defendere, non prohibentis quominus « sive per occasionem, sive per veritatem Christus annuntietur » (Phil. I, 18) ; illudque rebaptizantibus objicere. « Quid ergo fiet de his, qui ab haereticis venientes sine Ecclesiae Baptismo admissi sunt ? » Et hoc Firmilianus improbat, « quod vult Stephanus his, qui apud haereticos baptizantur, adesse praesentiam et sanctimoniam Christi ; » aut quod idem Papa litteris mandarat : « Multum proficit nomen Christi, ut quicunque et ubicunque in nomine Christi baptizatus fuerit, consequatur statim gratiam Christi ; » necnon istud ejusdem pontificis effatum : « Haeresis quidem parit et exponit, expositos autem Ecclesia suscipit. » Demum si praedicti Caesariensis episcopi verbis haerendum, « non puduit Stephanum fraternitatem scindere ; insuper et Cyprianum pseudochristum et pseudoapostolum et dolosum operarium dicere. » Hinc idem praesul illum inducit « rumpentem pacem modo cum Orientalibus, » per epistolam

9. Furthermore Stephen, on the testimony of the same Firmilian, spoke thus in his letter, "as though the apostles had forbidden those who come from heresy to be baptized, and had handed this down to posterity to be kept." The same Firmilian is displeased "that Stephen and those who agree with him contend that the remission of sins and the second birth proceed in the Baptism of heretics, among whom even they themselves confess that the Holy Spirit is not; and at the same time they will have it that there is one baptism for us and for heretics: likewise, that they do not think it must be asked who he is who baptized, because he who baptized could obtain grace by the invocation of the Trinity of the names of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Then, after much put in between, he says Stephen is not ashamed "to assert this, that through those who are themselves set in all sins, he says remission of sins can be given." He notes also that Stephen with his associates defends himself by the example of Paul, who did not forbid that "whether in pretence or in truth Christ be proclaimed" (Phil. 1:18); and that he throws this at the rebaptizers: "What then will become of those who, coming from heretics, were admitted without the Baptism of the Church?" And Firmilian condemns this too, "that Stephen will have it that the presence and holiness of Christ are present to those who are baptized among heretics;" or what the same Pope had enjoined in his letter: "The name of Christ avails much, so that whoever and wherever anyone has been baptized in the name of Christ, he obtains at once the grace of Christ;" and also this pronouncement of the same pontiff: "Heresy indeed bears and exposes, but the Church takes up those who have been exposed." Finally, if one is to hold to the words of the aforesaid bishop of Caesarea, "Stephen was not ashamed to tear apart the brotherhood; and moreover to call Cyprian a false christ and a false apostle and a deceitful workman." Hence the same prelate presents him as "breaking peace now with the Easterners," through the letter

Editors' notes and page, col. 1022

Page

running head: S. STEPH. NON EXSTANTIUM. (head cut off at left edge of image)
marginal letters: A ‹troversiae illae certius dirimantur›; B ‹deinde caeteris, peccatorum remittendorum›; C ‹tum sanctum non esse; simulque›; D ‹qui apud haereticos baptizantur›
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column begins with the fragment "troversiae" carried over from col. 1021; column ends with "epi-" split at the column break; "agnoscit Quo" printed without a full stop, set as printed; "lit teris" broken at the line end without a hyphen, joined as litteris; "fiet" looks like "flet" in the image, probably the fi ligature, set fiet (UNSURE); the point after "objicere" is a raised dot, set as a full stop (UNSURE); "baptizatus" has slightly damaged type but is legible; "volunt : item" printed in italic

PL 3:1023

videlicet quam in Orientem misit, modo cum Afris, nimirum per epistolam quam Cypriano rescripsit. Qua de re Cyprianus scribens ad Pompeium ita loquitur : « Dat honorem Deo, qui haereticorum amicus, et inimicus Christianorum, sacerdotes Dei, veritatem Christi et Ecclesiae unitatem tuentes ABSTINENDOS putat? (Epist. LXXIV.) Augustinus quoque lib. de Unico Capit. cont. Petil. eadem de re sermonem habens verbum abstinendos retinet.

namely the one which he sent into the East, now with the Africans, that is, through the letter which he wrote back to Cyprian. On this matter Cyprian, writing to Pompeius, speaks thus: "Does he give honour to God who, a friend of heretics and an enemy of Christians, thinks that the priests of God, who guard the truth of Christ and the unity of the Church, ARE TO BE EXCLUDED? (Ep. 74.) Augustine too, in the book On the Single Chapter against Petilian, treating of the same matter, keeps the word abstinendos.

10. Ea ipsa, quae Firmilianus perstringit, aut certe pleraque, in ea erant Epistola, quam Jubaianus ad Cyprianum miserat, quamque iste praesul Epistola LXXIII ad Jubaianum rescripta confutare aggreditur. In hac Cyprianus offendisse se testatur, quod quaerendum non sit quis baptizaverit, quando is qui baptizatus sit, accipere remissam peccatorum potuerit secundum quod crediderit. » Quod et supra Firmilianus reprehendit. Addit Cyprianus et in eadem epistola : « Marcionis fieri mentionem, ut nec ab ipso venientes dicat baptizari, quod jam in nomine Jesu baptizati esse videantur. » Ac deinde tacito Stephani nomine plures ejus sententias in hunc modum refert : « Frustra quidam, qui ratione vincuntur, consuetudinem nobis opponunt; » et mox. « Nec quisquam dicat. Quod accepimus ab apostolis, hoc sequimur; » et post pauca. « Quod enim quidam dicunt, quasi ad haereticorum suffragium pertineat quod dixerit apostolus Paulus : Verumtamen omni modo, sive per occasionem sive per veritatem, Christus annuntietur; » ac subinde. « Non est autem quod aliquis ad circumveniendam Christianam veritatem Christi, nomen opponat, ut dicat. In nomine Jesu Christi ubicunque et quomodocunque baptizati, gratiam Baptismi sunt consecuti; » et sub finem. « Sed, dicit aliquis, quid ergo fiet de his qui in praeteritum de haeresi ad Ecclesiam venientes, sine Baptismo admissi sunt? »

10. Those very things which Firmilian censures, or at least most of them, were in the letter which Jubaianus had sent to Cyprian, and which that bishop undertakes to refute in Letter 73, written back to Jubaianus. In it Cyprian testifies that he had come upon the statement that one need not ask who baptized, since he who was baptized could receive remission of sins according to what he had believed." This too Firmilian censured above. Cyprian adds also in the same letter: "That mention was made of Marcion, so that he says that not even those coming from him are to be baptized, because they appear to have been baptized already in the name of Jesus." And then, with Stephen's name kept silent, he reports several of his opinions in this manner: "In vain do certain people, who are overcome by reason, set custom against us"; and soon after: "Nor let anyone say: What we have received from the apostles, this we follow"; and a little after: "For as to what certain people say, as if it pertained to the support of heretics, that the apostle Paul said: Nevertheless in every way, whether by pretext or by truth, let Christ be proclaimed"; and further on: "But there is no reason why anyone, in order to circumvent the Christian truth of Christ, should set up the name, so as to say: Those baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, wherever and however, have obtained the grace of Baptism"; and towards the end: "But, someone says, what then will become of those who in the past, coming from heresy to the Church, were admitted without Baptism?"

11. Unde vero eorum, quae Stephano ac sociis ejus Firmilianus Cyprianusque tribuunt, tanta consensio: nisi aut Stephanus ea quae ad Orientales scripserat, in Epistola ad Cyprianum repetierit, aut easdem litteras ambo penes se habuerint? Et vero non levia sunt indicia, quibus epistolam a Jubaiano ad Cyprianum missam, eam ipsam esse suspicemur, quae a Stephano ad Orientales destinata fuerat. Quod si ita est, Stephani tum ad Orientales tum ad Cyprianum litteras concilio Carthaginiensi III, sub Cypriano anteriores esse conficitur: siquidem in hoc concilio praelectae sunt « et litterae Jubaiani ad Cyprianum factae, et Cypriani ad Jubaianum, itemque ad Stephanum rescriptae, quidque postmodum Jubaianus idem Cypriano rescripserit. » Praeterea Stephanum circa idem tempus et ad Orientales et ad Cyprianum scripsisse id argumento est, quod cum Cyprianus Epistolae, quam Stephano rescribebat, exemplum Firmiliano transmitti curasset, ei Firmilianus litteras, quibus Stephanus Orientales a se abstinendos esse denuntiabat, ante accepisse se, quam ipsius exemplum, significavit. Atqui mox memoratum Carthaginiense concilium Kalendis Septembris consignatur, idque anno 256 habitum esse plerique eruditi consentiunt. Unde et praedictas Stephani litteras ad ejusdem anni 256 initium, aut circiter, referri nil vetat. Is enim ardor quo Cyprianus hac in causa se gessit, multam inter scripta rescriptaque aut ea quae tum gesta sunt, moram intermitti non patitur. Ut est, quae a Firmiliano ac Cypriano scriptis mandatae sunt Stephani sententiae, sive ex ipsius ad Orientales, seu ex ejusdem ad Cyprianum litteris, aut etiam ex utrisque excerptae fuerint, idoneae certe sunt, quibus multae de Baptismo concertationumque plenae disputationes finiantur. Hujus rei experimentum faciamus.

11. Whence, then, comes such agreement among the things which Firmilian and Cyprian attribute to Stephen and his associates, unless either Stephen repeated in the Letter to Cyprian what he had written to the Easterners, or both had the same letter in their possession? And indeed there are no slight indications by which we may suspect that the letter sent by Jubaianus to Cyprian was the very one which had been dispatched by Stephen to the Easterners. If this is so, it follows that Stephen's letters both to the Easterners and to Cyprian were earlier than the third Council of Carthage under Cyprian: since in this council there were read out "both the letters of Jubaianus written to Cyprian, and those of Cyprian to Jubaianus, and likewise those written in reply to Stephen, and what the same Jubaianus afterwards wrote back to Cyprian." Moreover, that Stephen wrote at about the same time both to the Easterners and to Cyprian is shown by this: when Cyprian had taken care that a copy of the Letter which he was writing in reply to Stephen be sent to Firmilian, Firmilian indicated to him that he had received the letter in which Stephen declared that the Easterners were to be kept apart from him before he received the copy of Cyprian's own. Now the Council of Carthage just mentioned is dated to the Kalends of September, and most scholars agree that it was held in the year 256. Hence nothing forbids referring the aforesaid letters of Stephen to the beginning of the same year 256, or thereabouts. For the ardour with which Cyprian conducted himself in this cause does not allow much delay to be interposed between writings and replies, or the things that were done at that time. However that may be, the opinions of Stephen which were committed to writing by Firmilian and Cyprian, whether they were excerpted from his letter to the Easterners, or from his letter to Cyprian, or even from both, are certainly fit to settle many disputes about Baptism that are full of contention. Let us make trial of this.

Editors' notes and page, col. 1023

Footnotes

Variae lectiones.

Variant readings.

(printed under page 563)

(1) ‹anchor: EPISTOLA› · call in the heading set across both columns (its numeral printed in col 1024)

(printed under page 563) (1) Clarissimus editor Oxoniensis, tametsi veteres Cypriani codices circiter viginti a se evolutos dicit, in nullum incidisse se fatetur, qui epistolam hanc contineret. Verum hoc etiam aliis, quarum (continues)

(1) The most distinguished Oxford editor, although he says he went through about twenty old manuscripts of Cyprian, admits that he came upon none that contained this letter. But this [is true] also of others, of which (continues)

(printed under page 563)

Page

running head: 1023 S. STEPHANUS PAPA I[...] (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A stolam videlicet quam; B testatur,quod quaerendum; C ac subinde. « Non est; D CYPRIANUS STEPHANO FRATRI SALUTEM.
old-edition numerals: 989 after certe
other: first word "stolam" is the end of epistolam broken from the previous column; "Cyprianum" has a damaged final m, read as m; full-width title lines not set: EPISTO[LAE] / QUAE AD S. STEPHANUM I [...] / EPISTOLA (1[...] / S. CYPRIANI CARTHAGINENSIS EPISCOP[I] / (Erasm. III, 13; Pamel. Rigalt. Baluz. LXVII; Paris. ...), all after the rule below "admissi sunt?"; editors' Argumentum ("Ut litteris ad episcopos Galliarum") printed across both columns and cut off, not set; Variae lectiones and Variorum notae at the page foot not set; salutation and ABSTINENDOS printed in small capitals
other: a full-width band stands across cols 1023/1024 in mid-page: the 1 paragraph(s) above it in col 1024 are set here, after the 2 above it in col 1023 (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 continues with CYPRIANUS STEPHANO FRATRI SALUTEM. (another unit); not set here

PL 3:1024

Editors' notes and page, col. 1024

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: sciens? / ea, quae etiam› · call in col 1024

¹ Quae etiam Ver Man.

¹ "Which also": Ver[onensis?] Man[uscript?]. [The sigla are left as printed; their expansion is not certain.]

Variorum notae.

Notes of various editors.

(1) ‹anchor: EPISTOLA (1). (heading of the next unit's letter)› · call in col 1024

(1) Clarissimus editor Oxoniensis, tametsi veteres Cypriani codices circiter viginti a se evolutos dicit, in nullum incidisse se fatetur, qui epistolam hanc contineret. Verum hoc etiam aliis, quarum […]

(1) The most distinguished Oxford editor, although he says that he went through about twenty old codices of Cyprian, confesses that he came upon none that contained this letter. But this [happened] to others too, whose […]

(printed under page 563)