Migne Reading Room
PL 3 · cols. 1173–1184
S. Cyprianus, Epistola ad Pompeium, contra epistolam Stephani
Editors' preface
EPISTOLA S. CYPRIANI AD POMPEIUM CONTRA EPISTOLAM STEPHANI
Letter of St Cyprian to Pompeius against the Letter of Stephen
DE HAERETICIS BAPTIZANDIS.
On Baptizing Heretics.
(Erasm. p. 332 Pamel. Rigalt. Baluz. Oxon. Lips. LXXIV).
(Erasmus p. 332, Pamelius, Rigault, Baluze, Oxford, Leipzig LXXIV).
ARGUMENTUM hujus Epistolae istud est apud D. August., libr. V, contra Donatist., cap. 23: « Ad Pompeium inquit, etiam scribit Cyprianus de hac eadem re; ubi aperte indicat Stephanum, quem Romanae Ecclesiae episcopum tunc fuisse didicimus, non solum sibi ad ista non consensisse, verum etiam contra scripsisse atque praecepisse. » De qua rursum cap. 25: « Jam illa quae in Stephanum iratus effudit, retractare nolo, quia et opus non est. Eadem quippe ipsa dicuntur quae jam satis discussa sunt; et ea praeterire melius est quae periculum perniciosae dissensionis habuerunt. Stephanus autem et abstinendos putaverat qui de suscipiendis haereticis priscam consuetudinem convellere corarentur; iste autem quaestioni ipsius difficultate permotus, et sanctis charitatis visceribus largissime praeditus, in unitate eis manendum qui diversa sentirent. Ita, quamvis commotius sed tamen fraterne indignetur, vicit tamen pax Christi in cordibus eorum, ut in tali discrepatione nullum inter eos malum schismatis oriretur. » Hactenus ille; quae prolixius citavimus eo quod antidoti sint loco, adversus eos qui hinc schisma suum a Romano Pontifice confirmare nituntur.
The argument of this Letter is found in St Augustine, book V Against the Donatists, chapter 23: “Cyprian also writes,” he says, “to Pompeius on this same matter; where he plainly indicates that Stephen, who we have learned was then bishop of the Roman Church, not only did not agree with him in these things, but even wrote and gave instructions against them.” Of which again in chapter 25: “Now what he poured out in anger against Stephen I do not wish to go over again, since 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 the things that carried the danger of a pernicious dissension. Stephen, for his part, had thought that even those should be kept away [from communion] who were trying to tear up the ancient custom concerning the receiving of heretics; but he [Cyprian], moved by the difficulty of the question itself, and most richly endowed with the holy bowels of charity, [held] that those who thought differently should remain with them in unity. Thus, although he is indignant rather vehemently, yet in a brotherly way, the peace of Christ nevertheless conquered in their hearts, so that in such a disagreement no evil of schism arose between them.” Thus far Augustine; we have cited this at some length because it serves as an antidote against those who strive on this ground to confirm their schism from the Roman Pontiff.
CYPRIANUS POMPEIO FRATRI SALUTEM.
Cyprian to Pompeius his brother, greeting.
I. Quanquam pene ea quae de haereticis baptizandis dicenda sunt complexi sumus in epistolis quarum ad te exempla transmisimus, frater charissime; tamen quia desiderasti in notitiam tuam perferri quid mihi ad litteras nostras Stephanus frater noster rescripserit, misi tibi rescripti ejus
I. Although we have covered almost all that is to be said about baptizing heretics in the letters of which we have sent you copies, dearest brother, yet since you desired that what our brother Stephen wrote back to me in reply to our letter should be brought to your knowledge, I have sent you of his rescript
Editors' notes and page, col. 1173
Footnotes
(72) ‹anchor: Leniter (lemma; call above the visible foot)› · call in col 1173 (not visible in these images)
(printed under page 638) (72) Leniter. Ita sanctus Augustinus. lib. IV, de Baptismo contra Donatistas, cap. 8, et lib. V, cap. 17, Ita etiam editio Morellii, decem libri nostri, et septem Anglicani. Erasmus, Manutius, et codex Corbeiensis, firmiter.
Gently. So Saint Augustine, book IV On Baptism against the Donatists, chap. 8, and book V, chap. 17. So too Morel's edition, ten of our books, and seven English ones. Erasmus, Manutius, and the Corbie manuscript have firmly.
(printed under page 638)
(73) ‹anchor: Nunc (lemma; call above the visible foot)› · call in col 1173 (not visible in these images)
(printed under page 638) (73) Nunc. Hoc vocabulum, quod in posterioribus editionibus exciderat, cum habeatur in editionibus Erasmi et Morelli, nos revocavimus ex fide tredecim exemplarium nostrorum et quatuor Anglicanorum. Idem vocabulum, quod a Lovaniensibus quoque omissum erat, sancto Augustino reddiderunt doctissimi viri quibus debemus novam operum editionem.
Now. This word, which had dropped out of the later editions though it stands in the editions of Erasmus and Morel, we have restored on the authority of thirteen of our copies and four English ones. The same word, which the Louvain editors had also omitted, was restored to Saint Augustine by the very learned men to whom we owe the new edition of his works.
(printed under page 638)
(74) ‹anchor: Libellum de Bono patientiae (lemma; call above the visible foot)› · call in col 1173 (not visible in these images)
(printed under page 638) (74) Libellum de Bono patientiæ. Refert hunc locum sanctus Augustinus, lib. IV, de Baptismo contra Donatistas, cap. 8, et lib. V, cap. 16.
The little book On the Good of Patience. Saint Augustine quotes this passage, book IV On Baptism against the Donatists, chap. 8, and book V, chap. 16.
(printed under page 638)
(75) ‹anchor: EPIST. LXXIV (heading; call above the visible foot)› · call in col 1173 (not visible in these images)
(printed under page 638) (75) EPIST. LXXIV. — Hanc epistolam, quæ primo edita est ab Erasmo, citant sanctus Augustinus lib. V de Baptismo adversus Donatistas, cap. 23; et lib. VI, cap. 7; et Facundus, lib. X, cap. 3, in libro contra Mocianum.
LETTER 74. — This letter, first published by Erasmus, is cited by Saint Augustine, book V On Baptism against the Donatists, chap. 23, and book VI, chap. 7; and by Facundus, book X, chap. 3, in the book against Mocianus.
(printed under page 638)
(76) ‹anchor: Cyprianus Pompeio› · call in col 1173
(printed under page 638) (76) Pompeio. Episcopo Sabratensi in provincia Tripolitana. Interfuit concilio Carthaginensi sub Cypriano. Concilio Cabarsussitano et Bagalensi interfuit Donatus episcopus Sabratensis. In collatione prima Carthaginensi, c. 133, nominatur Nados episcopus Sabratensis. Vide editionem nostram istius collationis, pag. 215.
To Pompeius. Bishop of Sabrata in the province of Tripolitana. He took part in the Council of Carthage under Cyprian. Donatus, bishop of Sabrata, took part in the Councils of Cabarsussa and Bagai. In the first Conference of Carthage, c. 133, Nados, bishop of Sabrata, is named. See our edition of that Conference, p. 215.
(printed under page 638)
(77) ‹anchor: Stephanus frater› · call in col 1173
(printed under page 638) (77) Stephanus frater. In uno codice regio scriptum est pater. Et infra in libro Compendiensi et in uno meo Stephano Patre nostro, pari errore quo factum est ut in Epistola sancti Gregorii papæ ad Victorem episcopum Panormitanum, lib. VII, indict. 1, epist. scriptum est in in codice Floriacensi: Oportet ut Paternitas Vestra, cum vulgo recte legatur Fraternitas Vestra. R. P. Harduinus in tomo secundo editionis suæ Conciliorum, pag. 1203, tradit epistolam concilii Milevitani ad Innocentium Papam habere in codice Justelli reverendissimo Patre Innocentio. Si hæ scripturæ non essent falsæ, habuisset Gregorius papa IV aliquam justam causam conquerendi de episcopis Gallicanis, qui Romano pontifici scribentes illum vocaverant fratrem, dum congruentius esset, inquit, solum ei reverentiam paternam exhibere. Inter Epistolas Adriani papæ IV reperitur una in qua imperatorem Fridericum arguit quod ad eum scribens suum nomen præposuerit nomini papæ, in quo insolentiæ, ne dicam arrogantiæ, notam incurris. Illa porro Gregorii IV epistola exstat apud Agobardum, et putabatur esse Agobardi, donec vir illustrissimus Petrus de Marca ostendit illam esse Gregorii, sub cujus nomine edita a nobis est inter opera Agobardi. Tum vero R. P. Labbeus illam in appendice tomi septimi Conciliorum posuit, et monuit exstare apud Agobardum, Et tamen R. P. Harduinus in tomo quarto editionis suæ, pag. 1275, suppresso nomine Agobardi, monuit se illam edere ex bibliotheca Floriacensi, ubi non exstat. Vide notas ad epistolam XLII, p. g. 429.
Brother Stephen. In one royal manuscript father is written. And below, in the Compiègne book and in one of mine, Stephen our Father: the same error by which, in the letter of Saint Gregory the pope to Victor, bishop of Palermo, book VII, indiction 1, the Fleury manuscript writes It behoves Your Paternity, where the common text rightly reads Your Fraternity. The Rev. Father Hardouin, in the second volume of his edition of the Councils, p. 1203, reports that the letter of the Council of Milevis to Pope Innocent has in Justel's manuscript to the most reverend Father Innocent. Had these readings not been false, Pope Gregory IV would have had some just cause to complain of the Gallican bishops who, writing to the Roman pontiff, had called him brother, when it would be more fitting, he says, to show him only a father's reverence. Among the letters of Pope Adrian IV is found one in which he rebukes the Emperor Frederick for having set his own name before the pope's in writing to him, in which you incur the mark of insolence, not to say arrogance. That letter of Gregory IV, moreover, survives among Agobard's works and was thought to be Agobard's, until the most illustrious Pierre de Marca showed it to be Gregory's; under his name we published it among the works of Agobard. Then the Rev. Father Labbe placed it in the appendix to the seventh volume of the Councils and noted that it is found in Agobard. And yet the Rev. Father Hardouin, in the fourth volume of his edition, p. 1275, suppressing Agobard's name, stated that he was publishing it from the library of Fleury, where it does not exist. See the notes on Letter 42, p. 429.
(printed under page 638) (78) Superba. Erasmus, tres libri nostri, quatuor Anglicani præferunt supervacua. In uno regio legitur ad superbiam. Lectionem nostram habent cætera exemplaria.
Proud. Erasmus, three of our books and four English ones offer superfluous. In one royal manuscript is read to pride. The other copies have our reading.
(printed under page 638) (79) Si quis ergo. Verba sunt ex epistola papæ Stephani relata supra in epistola ad Pompeium, pag. 138.
If anyone, therefore. These are words from Pope Stephen's letter, quoted above in the letter to Pompeius, p. 138.
(printed under page 638)
Page
- running head: 1173 PARS I. — MONUMENTA (cut off at the right edge)
- marginal letters: A ‹Servatur a nobis patienter›; B ‹Cyprianus Pompeio fratri salutem›; C ‹editionem.› (in the notes area)
- old-edition numerals: 1128 before ‹Cyprianus›
- other: Full-width lines not set, all cut off at the right edge: the title "EPISTOLA S. CYPRIANI AD POMPEIUM CO[...]", the subtitle "DE HAERETICIS BAPTIZAND[...]" and the source line "(Erasm. p. 332 Pamel. Rigalt. Baluz. ...)", all between the first paragraph and the salutation. Editors' matter "Argumentum hujus Epistolae istud est apud D. August." is printed full width and cut off, so it is not set. The salutation is printed in small capitals and is set in normal case. The first paragraph and the column end mid-sentence (the column ends at "rescripti ejus"). Baluze's notes 72-77 at the page foot are omitted.
- other: a full-width band stands across cols 1173/1174 in mid-page: the 1 paragraph(s) above it in col 1174 are set here, after the 1 above it in col 1173 (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 Cyprianus Pompeio fratri salutem.
- running head: 1173 PARS I. — MONUMENTA VETERUM. 1174
- marginal letters: A (right column, beside "permittente Domino et inspirante", previous unit); B (beside "Cyprianus Pompeio fratri salutem" / "exemplum"); C (in the footnotes, beside "imperatorem Fridericum")
- old-edition numerals: 1128 before Cyprianus
- misprints kept as printed (Argumentum, checked on the page, Q2): "corarentur" (for conarentur); "quaestioni" (for quaestionis); "in unitate eis manendum" (Augustine's text has "cum eis"). The band's subtitle carries the call (75) after BAPTIZANDIS (visible on the page; the call is not set in the text).
exemplum: quo lecto, magis ac magis ejus errorem denotabis, qui haereticorum causam contra Christianos et contra Ecclesiam Dei asserere conatur. Nam inter caetera vel superba, vel ad rem non pertinentia, vel sibi ipsi contraria, quae imperite atque improvide scripsit, etiam illud adjunxit ut diceret: Si quis ergo a quacunque haeresi
a copy; on reading it you will mark his error more and more, who tries to maintain the cause of heretics against Christians and against the Church of God. For among the other things, whether arrogant, or not pertinent to the matter, or contradicting himself, which he wrote unskilfully and without foresight, he also added this, so as to say: If anyone therefore from any heresy whatever
Editors' notes and page, col. 1174
Footnotes
(78) ‹anchor: vel superba› · call in col 1174
(printed under page 638)
(79) ‹anchor: Si quis ergo› · call in col 1174
(printed under page 638)
Page
- running head: MONUMENTA VETERUM. 1174
- marginal letters: A permittente Domino et inspirante; B exemplum : quo lecto; C imperatorem Fridericum arguit (in the foot-notes area); D (none)
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: the 1 paragraph(s) of this column above the full-width band are set under col 1173 (reading order, moved on receipt)
- running head: 1173 PARS I. — MONUMENTA VETERUM. 1174
- marginal letters: A (beside "permittente Domino et inspirante", previous unit); B (beside "exemplum: quo lecto"); C (in the footnotes)
- old-edition numerals: (none)
venerit ad vos, 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.
has come to you, let nothing be innovated except what has been handed down, namely that a hand be laid upon him for penitence, since the heretics themselves properly do not baptize those who come over to them from one another, but only admit them to communion.
II. A quacunque haeresi venientem baptizari in Ecclesia vetuit, id est, omnium haereticorum baptismata justa esse et legitima judicavit. Et cum singulae haereses singula baptismata et diversa peccata habeant, hic cum omnium baptismo communicans universorum delicta in sinum suum coacervata congessit. Et praecepit nihil aliud innovari nisi quod traditum est; quasi is innovet qui unitatem tenens, unum baptisma uni Ecclesiae vindicat, et non ille utique qui unitatis oblitus mendacia et contagia profanae tinctionis usurpat. Nihil innovetur, inquit, 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 praemonet ad Jesum Nave dicens: Non recedet liber legis hujus ex ore tuo, sed meditaberis in eo die ac nocte, ut observes facere omnia quae scripta sunt in eo (Josue I, 8). Item Dominus apostolos suos mittens mandat baptizari gentes et doceri ut observent omnia quaecunque ille praecepit (Matth. XXVIII, 19, 20). Si ergo aut in Evangelio praecipitur aut in apostolorum Epistolis vel Actibus continetur ut a quacunque haeresi venientes
II. He forbade one coming from any heresy whatever to be baptized in the Church; that is, he judged the baptisms of all heretics to be just and lawful. And since the individual heresies have their individual baptisms and diverse sins, this man, by communicating with the baptism of all, has gathered into his own bosom the heaped-up offences of them all. And he commanded that nothing else be innovated except what has been handed down; as if he innovates who, holding to unity, claims one baptism for the one Church, and not rather he who, forgetful of unity, usurps the lies and contagions of a profane dipping. Let nothing be innovated, he says, except what has been handed down. Whence is this tradition? Does it descend from the authority of the Lord and of the Gospel, or does it come from the commands and epistles of the apostles? For God testifies that those things are to be done which are written, and forewarns, saying to Jesus Nave: The book of this law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, that you may observe to do all the things that are written in it (Josh. 1:8). Likewise the Lord, sending His apostles, commands that the nations be baptized and taught to observe all things whatsoever He commanded (Matt. 28:19–20). 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 whatever
Editors' notes and page, col. 1175
Footnotes
(80) ‹anchor: Ad vos (lemma; call above the visible foot)› · call in col 1175 or 1176 (not visible in these images)
(printed under page 639) (80) Ad vos. Antea legebatur ad nos. Retinuimus lectionem septem veterum exemplarium. Constat quippe ex initio istius epistolæ et ex commonitorio Vincentii Lirinensis epistolam Stephani missam fuisse ad Africam. Vide notas nostras ad Vincentium, pag. 445, 447.
To you. Formerly to us was read. We have kept the reading of seven old copies. For it is clear from the beginning of this letter and from the Commonitory of Vincent of Lérins that Stephen's letter was sent to Africa. See our notes on Vincent, pp. 445, 447.
(printed under page 639)
(81) ‹anchor: Nihil innovetur (lemma; call above the visible foot)› · call in col 1175 or 1176 (not visible in these images)
(printed under page 639) (81) Nihil innovetur. Cœlestini papæ epistola ad episcopos Galliarum: Desinat incessere novitas vetustatem. Tertullianus in libro de Virginibus velandis: hæreses, non tam novitas quam veritas revincit. Optatus, lib. VII, dixit novitatem quærere in visceribus vetustatis.
Let nothing new be introduced. Pope Celestine's letter to the bishops of the Gauls: Let novelty cease to assail antiquity. Tertullian in the book On the Veiling of Virgins: heresies are refuted not so much by novelty as by truth. Optatus, book VII, spoke of seeking novelty in the bowels of antiquity.
(printed under page 639)
(82) ‹anchor: Non baptizent (lemma; call above the visible foot)› · call in col 1175 or 1176 (not visible in these images)
(printed under page 639) (82) Non baptizent. Codex Lamonii addit in pœnitentia, et mox venientem baptizari in manum pœnitentiæ in Ecclesia vetuit. Sunt multa hujusmodi exempla in codice Lamonii, de quibus disseruimus supra in notis ad epistolam LXXIII, pag. 502.
Let them not baptize. Lamoignon's manuscript adds in penance, and just after, he forbade one who comes to be baptized into the hand of penance in the Church. There are many examples of this kind in Lamoignon's manuscript, which we discussed above in the notes on Letter 73, p. 502.
(printed under page 639)
(83) ‹anchor: Omnium haereticorum (lemma; call above the visible foot)› · call in col 1175 or 1176 (not visible in these images)
(printed under page 639) (83) Omnium hæreticorum Exstant apud Nicolaum Eymerici in directorio inquisitorum responsiones Benedicti XII papæ, tum cardinalis, adversus errores Fratricellorum. in quibus ait Stephanum papam determinasse quod nullus baptizatus per quoscunque hæreticos veniens ad Ecclesiam catholicam rebaptizaretur: sanctum autem Cyprianum, cum multis episcopis in Africa celebrantem concilium, determinasse oppositum, videlicet quod baptizati a quibuscunque hæreticis, si ad Ecclesiam catholicam veniant, sunt baptizandi, et reprobasse in hoc Stephanum papam, ut patet in Cypriani epistolis ad Jubaianum, ad Stephanum et Pompeium, concilium autem Nicænum utramque opinionem sancti Cypriani et Stephani papæ correxisse determinando quod baptizati ab hæreticis non servantibus formam Ecclesiæ venientes ad Ecclesiam baptizentur, ab aliis vero hæreticis baptizati non rebaptizentur. Hanc Benedicti solutionem esse falsam ait Franciscus Pegna in commentariis ad Nicolaum, eamque refellit. Nescio an recte. Etenim Cyprianus ait papam Stephanum censuisse hæreticorum baptismata esse justa et legitima. Porro Benedicti responsiones adversus Fratricellos refert etiam Abrahamus Bzovius in suis Annalibus, sed mutat verba directorii. Nam ubi apud Nicolaum scriptum est: Ad istud respondet dominus Benedictus. Bzovius ponit: Ad istud respondet F. Jacobus Fornerius cardinalis, quia sciebat ita locutum fuisse antequam esset papa.
Of all heretics. In Nicholas Eymerich's Directory of Inquisitors there survive the replies of Pope Benedict XII, then a cardinal, against the errors of the Fraticelli. In them he says that Pope Stephen determined that no one baptized by any heretics whatever, on coming to the Catholic Church, should be rebaptized; but that Saint Cyprian, holding a council with many bishops in Africa, determined the opposite, namely that those baptized by any heretics whatever, if they come to the Catholic Church, are to be baptized, and in this rebuked Pope Stephen, as appears in Cyprian's letters to Jubaianus, to Stephen and to Pompeius; and that the Council of Nicaea corrected both opinions, Saint Cyprian's and Pope Stephen's, by determining that those baptized by heretics who do not keep the Church's form are to be baptized on coming to the Church, but those baptized by other heretics are not to be rebaptized. Francisco Peña, in his commentary on Nicholas, says this solution of Benedict's is false and refutes it. I do not know whether rightly. For Cyprian says that Pope Stephen held the baptisms of heretics to be just and lawful. Abraham Bzovius also reports Benedict's replies against the Fraticelli in his Annals, but changes the words of the Directory. For where Nicholas writes: To this the lord Benedict replies, Bzovius puts: To this replies Fr. Jacques Fournier, cardinal, because he knew that he had spoken so before he was pope.
(printed under page 639)
(84) ‹anchor: Tinctionis (lemma; call above the visible foot)› · call in col 1175 or 1176 (not visible in these images)
(printed under page 639) (84) Tinctionis. Codex Gratianopolitanus tinctionis et unctionis.
Of the dipping. The Grenoble manuscript has of the dipping and of the anointing.
(printed under page 639)
(85) ‹anchor: Ponticus (lemma; call above the visible foot)› · call in col 1175 or 1176 (not visible in these images)
(printed under page 639) (85) Ponticus. Hanc vocem addidimus ex auctoritate duodecim exemplarium nostrorum et sex Anglicanorum. Ea quæ illam non habent videntur esse decurtata ab imperitis librariis credentibus illam esse supervacaneam, quia statim sequitur Marsionem emersisse e Ponto. Irenæus, lib. I, cap. 21, scripsit Marcion Ponticus. Ponticum lupum vocat Rufinus, lib. V, cap. 13, post Eusebium. Illud dicere voluit sanctus Cyprianus, Marcionem, qui erat natione Ponticus, e regione ortum longinqua et barbara, videlicet e Ponto Euxino, tandem emersisse e Ponto, ubi latebat, nondum venisse Romam. Erasmus tamen habet vocem Ponticus, sed non subjunxit de Ponto. Tertullianus, lib. I, adversus Marcionem: Pontus qui dicitur Euxinus, natura negatur, nomine illuditur. Ennodius, lib. XII, epist. I: Etsi te immemorem mei Pontifica facit inhumanitas. Famosus locus exsilio Ovidii. De tempore quo Marcion vixit, vide Petavii animadversiones ad hæresim XLVI, apud Epiphanium.
The man of Pontus. We have added this word on the authority of twelve of our copies and six English ones. Those that lack it seem to have been cut short by unskilled copyists who thought it superfluous, because it is followed at once by the statement that Marcion emerged from Pontus. Irenaeus, book I, chap. 21, wrote Marcion of Pontus. Rufinus, book V, chap. 13, following Eusebius, calls him the wolf of Pontus. What Saint Cyprian meant is that Marcion, a Pontic by nation, born in a distant and barbarous region, namely on the Euxine Sea, had not yet emerged from Pontus, where he lay hidden, and had not yet come to Rome. Erasmus, however, has the word Ponticus but did not add from Pontus. Tertullian, book I Against Marcion: the Pontus called Euxine [hospitable] is belied by its nature and mocked by its name. Ennodius, book XII, letter 1: Although Pontic inhumanity makes you forgetful of me. A place famous for Ovid's exile. On the time when Marcion lived, see Petau's remarks on Heresy 46 in Epiphanius.
(printed under page 639)
(86) ‹anchor: Cerdon sub Hygino (lemma; call above the visible foot)› · call in col 1175 or 1176 (not visible in these images)
(printed under page 639) (86) Cerdon sub Hygino. Vide Massueti dissertationes ad Irenæum, pag. 68, § 155.
Cerdo under Hyginus. See Massuet's dissertations on Irenaeus, p. 68, § 155.
(printed under page 639)
(87) ‹anchor: Nonus fuit (lemma; call above the visible foot)› · call in col 1175 or 1176 (not visible in these images)
(printed under page 639) (87) Nonus fuit. Idem testatur sanctus Irenæus, lib. I, cap. 28, aiens Cerdonem venisse Romam sub Hygino.
He was the ninth. Saint Irenaeus attests the same, book I, chap. 28, saying that Cerdo came to Rome under Hyginus.
(printed under page 639)
Page
- running head: 1175 DE HAERETICORUM BA (cut off at the image edge)
- marginal letters: A ‹venerit ad vos (80), nihil innovetur›; B ‹contagia profanae tinctionis (84) usurpat›; C ‹(80) Ad vos. Antea legebatur› (footnote area); D ‹sponsiones Benedicti XII papae› (footnote area)
- old-edition numerals: 1129 after ‹tantum.›
non baptizentur, sed tantum manus illis imponatur in poenitentiam, observetur divina haec et sancta traditio. Si vero ubique haeretici nihil aliud quam adversarii et Antichristi nominantur, si vitandi et perversi et a semetipsis damnati pronuntiantur, quale est ut videantur damnandi a nobis non esse quos constat apostolica contestatione a semetipsis damnatos esse? Ut nemo infamare apostolos debeat, quasi illi haereticorum baptismata probaverint, aut eis sine Ecclesiae baptismo communicaverint, quando talia de haereticis apostoli scripserint, et hoc cum nondum haereticae pestes acriores prorupissent, necdum quoque Marcis Ponticus de Ponto emersisset, cujus magister Cerdon sub Hygino tunc episcopo, qui in urbe nonus fuit, Romam venit; quem Marcion secutus, additis ad crimen augmentis, impudentius caeteris et abruptius in Deum Patrem Creatorem blasphemare instituit, et, haereticum furorem sacrilegis armis contra Ecclesiam rebellantem sceleratius et gravius armavit.
are not baptized, but only a hand is laid upon them unto penance, let this divine and holy tradition be observed. But if everywhere heretics are called nothing other than adversaries and Antichrists, if they are pronounced to be shunned, and perverse, and condemned by their own selves, how is it that those whom it is established by apostolic testimony to be condemned by their own selves should seem not to deserve condemnation by us? So that no one ought to defame the apostles, as though they had approved the baptisms of heretics, or had communicated with them without the baptism of the Church, when the apostles wrote such things about heretics, and this when the fiercer pestilences of heresy had not yet broken out, nor had Marcion of Pontus yet emerged out of Pontus, whose master Cerdo came to Rome under Hyginus, then bishop, who was the ninth in the city; and Marcion, following him, with additions augmenting the crime, set about blaspheming God the Father the Creator more shamelessly and more abruptly than the rest, and armed the heretical fury, rebelling against the Church, with sacrilegious arms more wickedly and more heavily.
III. Quod si haereses constat postmodum plures ac pejores exstitisse, et si retro nusquam omnino praeceptum est neque conscriptum ut haeretico tantum manus in poenitentiam imponatur, et sic ei communicetur, et si baptisma non nisi unum est, quod apud nos est, et intus est, et soli Ecclesiae de divina dignatione concessum est, quae ista obstinatio est, quaeve praesumptio, humanam traditionem divinae dispositioni
III. But if it is established that heresies afterwards became more numerous and worse, and if in former times it was nowhere at all prescribed or written that only a hand should be laid upon a heretic unto penance and that he should thus be admitted to communion, and if baptism is nothing but one, which is with us, and is within, and has been granted by divine favour to the Church alone, what obstinacy is this, or what presumption, human tradition to the divine disposition
Editors' notes and page, col. 1176
Page
- running head: ...TICORUM BAPTISMATE. 1176 (cut off at the left edge of the image)
- marginal letters: A nientes non baptizentur; B in urbe nonus fuit; C colaum, eamque refellit (in the footnotes); D cat Rufinus, lib. v (in the footnotes)
- old-edition numerals: 1130 after apostolos
anteponere, nec animadvertere indignari et irasci Deum quoties divina praecepta solvit et praeterit humana traditio, sicut per Isaiam prophetam clamat et dicit: Populus iste labiis honorificat me, cor vero eorum longe separatum est a me. Sine causa autem colunt me, mandata et doctrinas hominum docentes (Isa. XXIX, 13). Item Dominus in Evangelio increpans similiter et objurgans ponit et dicit: Rejicitis mandatum Dei ut traditionem vestram statuatis (Marc. VII, 13). Cujus praecepti memor, beatus Apostolus commonet ipse quoque et instruit dicens Si quis aliter docet, et non acquiescit sanis verbis Domini nostri Jesu Christi et doctrinae ejus, stupore elatus est, nihil sciens, discede ab hujusmodi (I. Tim. VI, 3).
to prefer, and not to notice that God is indignant and angry whenever human tradition loosens and passes over the divine precepts, as He cries out and says through Isaiah the prophet: This people honours Me with their lips, but their heart is far separated from Me. But without cause do they worship Me, teaching the commandments and doctrines of men (Isa. 29:13). Likewise the Lord in the Gospel, rebuking and reproving in the same way, sets it down and says: You reject the commandment of God so that you may establish your tradition (Mark 7:13). Mindful of this precept, the blessed Apostle himself also admonishes and instructs, saying If anyone teaches otherwise, and does not acquiesce in the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and in His doctrine, he is puffed up with stupor, knowing nothing; withdraw from such a one (1 Tim. 6:3).
IV. 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. Quae vero est animi caecitas, quae pravitas, fidei unitatem de Deo Patre et de Jesu Christi Domini et Dei nostri traditione venientem nolle cognoscere? Nam si idcirco apud haereticos Ecclesia non est, quia una est et dividi non potest, et si ideo illic Spiritus sanctus non est, quia unus est, et esse apud profanos et extraneos non potest, utique et baptisma, quod in eadem unitate consistit, esse apud haereticos non potest, quia separari neque ab Ecclesia neque a Spiritu sancto potest.
IV. An excellent and lawful tradition indeed is put forward by the teaching of Stephen our brother, one that may furnish us with fitting authority! For in the same place of his letter he added and appended: Since the heretics themselves, each for their own part, do not baptize those who come to them from one another, but only receive them into communion. For to this pitch of evils has the Church of God and Bride of Christ sunk, that she follows the examples of heretics, that for the celebration of the heavenly sacraments light borrows its discipline from darkness, and Christians do what antichrists do. But what blindness of mind is this, what perversity, to refuse to recognize the unity of the faith that comes from God the Father and from the tradition of Jesus Christ our Lord and God? For if the Church is not among heretics for this reason, that it is one and cannot be divided, and if the Holy Spirit is not there for this reason, that He is one and cannot be among the profane and strangers, then certainly baptism too, which consists in the same unity, cannot be among heretics, since it can be separated neither from the Church nor from the Holy Spirit.
V. Aut si effectum baptismi majestati nominis tribuunt, ut qui in nomine Jesu Christi ubicunque et quomodocunque baptizantur, innovati et sanctificati judicentur, cur non in ejusdem Christi nomine illic et manus baptizato imponitur ad accipiendum Spiritum sanctum, cur eadem ejusdem majestas nominis nou praevalet in manus impositione quam valuisse contendunt in baptismi sanctificatione? Nam si potest quis extra Ecclesiam natus, templum Dei fieri, cur non possit super templum et Spiritus sanctus infundi? Qui enim peccatis in baptismo
V. Or if they attribute the effect of baptism to the majesty of the name, so that those who are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ anywhere and in any manner are judged renewed and sanctified, why is the hand not also laid there upon the baptized person in the name of the same Christ for receiving the Holy Spirit, why does the same majesty of the same name not prevail in the imposition of the hand, which they contend availed in the sanctification of baptism? For if someone born outside the Church can become a temple of God, why could not the Holy Spirit also be poured out upon the temple? For he who in baptism, his sins
Editors' notes and page, col. 1177
Footnotes
(88) ‹anchor: profanos et extraneos› · call in col 1177
(printed under page 640) (88) Profanos et extraneos. Codex sancti Arnulphi extrarios. Sic etiam habebat Veronensis.
Profane and strangers. The manuscript of Saint-Arnoul has outsiders. So too the Verona manuscript had.
(printed under page 640)
(89) ‹anchor: cadem ejusdem majestas› · call in col 1177
(printed under page 640) (89) Cur eadem majestas. Lege cur non eadem majestas. Istud excidit. Error inductus est a Rigaltio et continuatus in editione Anglicana.
Why the same majesty. Read why not the same majesty. That word dropped out. The error was introduced by Rigault and carried on in the English edition.
(printed under page 640)
(90) ‹anchor: Factus est (lemma; call above the visible foot)› · call in col 1177 or 1178 (not visible in these images)
(printed under page 640) (90) Factus est. In editionibus Erasmi et Morellii, quæ magis placuerunt Pamelio quam Mantiana, legitur factus non est. Verum libri veteres non habent negationem, quæ profecto videtur esse contraria sententiæ sancti Cypriani.
He was made. In the editions of Erasmus and Morel, which pleased Pamelius more than the Manutian, is read he was not made. But the old books do not have the negative, which indeed seems to be contrary to Saint Cyprian's meaning.
(printed under page 640) (91) Servavit. Erasmus posuit salvavit. Quæ lectio exstat in duobus exemplaribus nostris et in Camberonensi, ut testatur Pamelius. At alia tredecim nostra habent servavit. Et tamen lectio inducta ab Erasmo prævaluit hactenus in omnibus editionibus. Cælius Calcagninus, lib. II, epist, 9, censet scribendum esse servatorem, non salvatorem.
He preserved. Erasmus put he saved. This reading is found in two of our copies and in the Cambron manuscript, as Pamelius attests. But thirteen others of ours have he preserved. And yet the reading introduced by Erasmus has prevailed until now in all the editions. Celio Calcagnini, book II, letter 9, holds that one should write servator (preserver), not salvator (saviour).
(printed under page 640) (92) Insufflavit. Hic locus ex capite secundo Geneseos desumptus refertur secundum versionem antiquam qua sanctus Cyprianus utebatur, qua etiam usum esse Avitum Viennensem liquet ex secunda ejus Epistola ad Gundobadum. Reprehendit autem Avitus illos qui utebantur ea versione qua nos hodie utimur. Et tamen Tertullianus hunc locum refert eo modo quo illi utebantur quos Avitus perstringit. In epistola cujusdam Otberti de obitu Hugonis (continues)
He breathed into. This passage, taken from the second chapter of Genesis, is quoted according to the old version that Saint Cyprian used, which Avitus of Vienne also clearly used, as his second Letter to Gundobad shows. Avitus, however, finds fault with those who used the version we use today. And yet Tertullian quotes this passage in the form used by those whom Avitus criticizes. In the letter of a certain Otbert on the death of Hugh (continues)
(printed under page 640) (93) Flatum. Unus codex regius spiraculum, sicut in vulgata editione Genescos.
Breath. One royal manuscript has spiraculum (breath), as in the Vulgate of Genesis.
(printed under page 640)
Page
- running head: 1177 PARS I. — MONUMENTA (cut off at the image edge)
- marginal letters: A ‹anteponere, nec animadvertere›; B ‹IV. Praeclara sane et legitima›; C ‹apud profanos et extraneos›; D ‹(88) Profanos et extraneos (footnote line)›
- old-edition numerals: 1121 after ‹ejus,›
expositis sanctificatus est et in novum hominem spiritaliter reformatus, ad accipiendum Spiritum sanctum idoneus factus est, quando Apostolus dicat: Quotquot in Christo baptizati estis, Christum induistis (Galat. III, 27), qui potest apud haereticos baptizatus Christum induere, multo magis potest Spiritum sanctum, quem Christus misit, accipere. Caeterum major erit mittente qui missus est, ut incipiat foris baptizatus Christum quidem induisse, sed Spiritum sanctum non potuisse percipere; quasi possit aut sine Spiritu Christus indui, aut a Christo Spiritus separari. Illud quoque quam ineptum est, ut cum nativitas secunda spiritalis sit, qua in Christo per lavacrum regenerationis nascimur, dicant quod possit quis apud haereticos spiritaliter nasci, ubi Spiritum negant esse. Peccata enim purgare et hominem sanctificare aqua sola non potest, nisi habeat et Spiritum sanctum. Quare aut Spiritum sanctum necesse est concedant esse illic ubi baptisma esse dicunt, aut nec baptisma esse sine Spiritu sancto non potest.
put off, was sanctified and spiritually re-formed into the new man, [and] was made fit to receive the Holy Spirit, since the Apostle says: As many of you as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ (Gal. 3:27), he who, baptized among the heretics, can put on Christ can much more receive the Holy Spirit, Whom Christ sent. Otherwise He who is sent will be greater than He who sends, so that one baptized outside begins to have put on Christ indeed, but to have been unable to receive the Holy Spirit; as if Christ could either be put on without the Spirit, or the Spirit be separated from Christ. This too, how foolish it is, that although the second birth, by which we are born in Christ through the washing of regeneration, is spiritual, they say that someone can be spiritually born among the heretics, where they deny that the Spirit is. For water alone cannot cleanse sins and sanctify a man, unless it has the Holy Spirit also. Wherefore either they must grant that the Holy Spirit is there where they say baptism is, or else neither can baptism not be without the Holy Spirit.
VI. Quale est autem asserere et contendere quod esse possint filii Dei qui non sint in Ecclesia nati? baptisma enim esse in quo homo vetus moritur et novus nascitur manifestat et probat beatus Apostolus dicens: Servavit nos per lavacrum regenerationis (Tit. III, 5). Si autem in lavacro, id est in baptismo, est regeneratio, quomodo generare filios Deo haeresis per Christum potest, quae Christi Sponsa non est? Ecclesia est enim sola quae Christo conjuncta et adunata spiritaliter filios generat, eodem Apostolo rursus dicente: Christus dilexit Ecclesiam et seipsum tradidit pro ea ut eam sanctificaret, purgans eam lavacro aquae (Ephes. V, 25, 26). Si igitur haec est dilecta et Sponsa quae sola a Christo sanctificatur et lavacro ejus sola purgatur, manifestum est haeresim, quae Sponsa Christi non sit, nec purgari nec sanctificari lavacro ejus posse filios Deo generare non posse.
VI. But what sort of thing is it to assert and contend that they can be sons of God who have not been born in the Church? For the blessed Apostle shows and proves that baptism is that in which the old man dies and the new is born, saying: He saved us through the washing of regeneration (Titus 3:5). But if regeneration is in the washing, that is, in baptism, how can heresy, which is not the Bride of Christ, beget sons to God through Christ? For it is the Church alone which, joined and united to Christ, spiritually begets sons, the same Apostle saying again: Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her, that He might sanctify her, cleansing her with the washing of water (Eph. 5:25–26). If therefore this is the beloved and the Bride who alone is sanctified by Christ and alone is cleansed by His washing, it is manifest that heresy, which is not the Bride of Christ, [being] able neither to be cleansed nor to be sanctified by His washing, is not able to beget sons to God.
VII. Porro autem non per manus impositionem quis nascitur quando accipit Spiritum sanctum, sed in Ecclesiae baptismo, ut Spiritum sanctum jam natus accipiat, sicut in primo homine Adam factum est (Gen. II). Ante enim Deus eum plasmavit, et tunc insufflavit in faciem ejus flatum vitae.
VII. Moreover, it is not through the imposition of hands that one is born when he receives the Holy Spirit, but in the baptism of the Church, so that, already born, he may receive the Holy Spirit, as was done in the first man Adam (Gen. 2). For God first formed him, and then breathed into his face the breath of life.
Editors' notes and page, col. 1178
Footnotes
(90) ‹anchor: factus est› · call in col 1178
(printed under page 640)
(91) ‹anchor: Servavit› · call in col 1178
(printed under page 640)
(92) ‹anchor: insufflavit› · call in col 1178
(printed under page 640)
(93) ‹anchor: flatum› · call in col 1178
(printed under page 640)
Page
- running head: MONUMENTA VETERUM. 1178
- marginal letters: A expositis sanctificatus est; B ritaliter nasci, ubi Spiritum; C sto conjuncta et adunata; D Caelius Calcagninus (beside the footnotes)
- old-edition numerals: 1132 after sanctum
Nec enim potest accipi Spiritus, nisi prius fuerit qui accipiat. Cum autem nativitas Christianorum in baptismo sit, baptismi autem generatio et sanctificatio apud solam, Sponsam Christi sit, quae parere spiritaliter et generare filios Deo possit, ubi et ex qua et cui natus est qui filius Ecclesiae non est, ut habere quis possit Deum Patrem ante Ecclesiam matrem? Cum vero nulla omnino haeresis, sed neque aliquod schisma habere salutaris baptismi sanctificationem foris possit, cur in tantum Stephani fratris nostri obstinatio dura prorupit ut etiam de Marcionis baptismo, item Valentini et Apelletis, et caeterorum blasphemantium in Deum Patrem contendat filios Deo nasci, et illic in nomine Jesu Christi dicat remissionem peccatorum dari ubi blasphematur in Patrem et in Dominum Deum Christum ?
For the Spirit cannot be received unless there first be someone to receive it. But since the birth of Christians is in baptism, and the generation and sanctification of baptism is with the Bride of Christ alone, who is able to bring forth spiritually and to beget sons to God, where and of whom and to whom has he been born who is not a son of the Church, so that anyone could have God as Father before [having] the Church as mother? And since no heresy at all, nor yet any schism, can possess outside the sanctification of saving baptism, why has the hard obstinacy of our brother Stephen broken out so far that he contends that even from the baptism of Marcion, and likewise of Valentinus and Apelles, and of the others who blaspheme against God the Father, sons are born to God, and says that remission of sins is given there in the name of Jesus Christ where blasphemy is uttered against the Father and against the Lord God Christ?
VIII. Quo in loco considerandum est, frater charissime, pro fide et religione loci sacerdotalis, quo fungimur, an constare sacerdoti Dei ratio in die judicii possit asserenti et probanti et in acceptum referenti blasphemantium baptismata, cum Dominus comminetur et dicat: Et nunc praeceptum hoc ad vos est, o sacerdotes, si non audieritis, et si non posueritis in corde vestro ut detis honorem nomini meo, dicit Dominus omnipotens, immittam in vos maledictionem, et maledicam benedictionem vestram (Malach. II, 1, 2). Dat honorem Deo qui Marcionis baptismo communicat? Dat honorem Deo qui apud
VIII. At this point it must be considered, dearest brother, for the sake of the faith and the religious duty of the priestly office which we discharge, whether the account of a priest of God can stand on the day of judgement, if he asserts and approves and credits as valid the baptisms of blasphemers, when the Lord threatens and says: And now this commandment is to you, O priests: if you will not hear, and if you will not lay it to your heart to give honour to My name, says the Lord almighty, I will send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessing (Mal. 2:1–2). Does he give honour to God who holds communion with the baptism of Marcion? Does he give honour to God who among
Editors' notes and page, col. 1179
Footnotes
(94) ‹anchor: Ante Ecclesiam matrem (lemma; call above the visible foot)› · call in col 1179 or 1180 (not visible in these images)
(printed under page 641) (94) Ante Ecclesiam matrem. Undecim libri veteres, habeat ante Ecclesiam matrem. Sed vox habeat deest in tribus itidem antiquis et in editionibus antiquis. Supra epist. X, pag. 20: Ante Domini pacem mater prior sumat.
Before the Church as mother. Eleven old books have let him have the Church as mother first. But the word let him have is lacking in three equally old ones and in the old editions. Above, Letter 10, p. 20: Before the Lord's peace, let the mother first receive.
(printed under page 641)
(95) ‹anchor: Stephani fratris nostri obstinatio (lemma; call above the visible foot)› · call in col 1179 or 1180 (not visible in these images)
(printed under page 641) (95) Stephani fratris nostri obstinatio. Vincentius Lirinensis, c. 21, dixit tanto adamante pertinaciæ; Cassiodorus, lib. VI, epist. 3, cruda obstinatione. Constitutio Gratiani et Valentiniani in titulo codicis Theodosiani de hæreticis, consuetudo obstinationis pertinax. Contra pertinacia virtutis apud Valerium Maximum lib. III, cap. 2. Pertinaciam enim aliquando in bonam partem acceptam esse a Baronio nos monuimus in notis ad Capitularia, pag. 1111.
The obstinacy of our brother Stephen. Vincent of Lérins, c. 21, said with such adamant of stubbornness; Cassiodorus, book VI, letter 3, with raw obstinacy. The constitution of Gratian and Valentinian in the title of the Theodosian Code on heretics has the stubborn habit of obstinacy. On the other hand, the persistence of virtue in Valerius Maximus, book III, chap. 2. For we have noted in the notes on the Capitularies, p. 1111, that pertinacia is sometimes taken in a good sense by Baronius.
(printed under page 641)
(96) ‹anchor: Sacerdoti Dei (lemma; call above the visible foot)› · call in col 1179 or 1180 (not visible in these images)
(printed under page 641) (96) Sacerdoti Dei. Ita sex libri nostri et quinque Anglicani. Antea legebatur: Sacerdotis Dei ratio in die judicii possit asserentis et præsumentis et in acceptum referentis blasphemantium.
For a priest of God. So six of our books and five English ones. Formerly was read: the account of a priest of God could, on the day of judgement, of one who asserts and presumes and credits to himself the deeds of blasphemers.
(printed under page 641)
(97) ‹anchor: Divinae militiae sacramenta (lemma; call above the visible foot)› · call in col 1179 or 1180 (not visible in these images)
(printed under page 641) (97) Divinæ militiæ sacramenta. Infra in libro de Lapsis, pag. 193: Christi sacramentum temeritate præcipiti solveretur. Sumpta ista ex disciplina militari. Vide Godeschalcum Stewechium ad Vegetium, ubi recte formam sacramenti militum explicavit. Vide etiam sanctum Joannem Chrysostomum in initio secundæ parænesis ad Theodorum lapsum.
The oaths of the divine soldiery. Below, in the book On the Lapsed, p. 193: the oath of Christ would be dissolved by headlong rashness. These expressions are taken from military discipline. See Godescalc Stewech on Vegetius, where he rightly explained the form of the soldiers' oath. See also Saint John Chrysostom at the beginning of the second exhortation to Theodore after his fall.
(printed under page 641)
(98) ‹anchor: Castrorum caelestium (lemma; call above the visible foot)› · call in col 1179 or 1180 (not visible in these images)
(printed under page 641) (98) Castrorum cœlestium. Antea legebatur sacrorum, nullo sensu. Restituimus veram lectionem ex fide decem veterum exemplarium.
Of the heavenly camp. Formerly of the sacred things was read, which makes no sense. We have restored the true reading on the authority of ten old copies.
(printed under page 641)
(99) ‹anchor: Uberius (lemma; call above the visible foot)› · call in col 1179 or 1180 (not visible in these images)
(printed under page 641) (99) Uberius. Hanc lectionem invenimus in sex antiquis codicibus nostris et in quinque Anglicanis. Antea scriptum erat liberius. Sic in calce istius epistolæ, pag. 141, vitio librarii positum erat in uno codice regio eadem libertate pro ubertate. In Burgundico reperi in libro de Habitu virginum, pag. 175: Facultatum libertate locupletes pro ubertate. Et in libro de Oratione Dominica, pag. 207, in codice Pithœano et in Thuano bonitatis libertas pro ubertas. In hac ipsa epistola LXXIV ad Pompeium, in codice Lamonii, paulo post aqua collecta eadem libertate repræsentatur. Pro quo alii codices et editiones recte habent ubertate. In libro de Laude martyrii in editione Morellii legitur uberius atque propensius. Pro quo quidam libri veteres habent liberius.
More abundantly. We found this reading in six of our old manuscripts and in five English ones. Formerly more freely was written. So at the end of this letter, p. 141, by a copyist's fault one royal manuscript had put with the same freedom for abundance. In the Burgundian manuscript I found in the book On the Dress of Virgins, p. 175: rich in the freedom of their means for abundance. And in the book On the Lord's Prayer, p. 207, the Pithou and de Thou manuscripts have the freedom of goodness for the abundance. In this very Letter 74 to Pompeius, in Lamoignon's manuscript, a little further on, the gathered water is shown with the same freedom, where other manuscripts and editions rightly have abundance. In the book On the Praise of Martyrdom, Morel's edition reads more abundantly and more readily, where certain old books have more freely.
(printed under page 641)
(1) ‹anchor: Crinibus (lemma; call above the visible foot)› · call in col 1179 or 1180 (not visible in these images)
(printed under page 641) (1) Crinibus. Quamvis hæc lectio non reperiatur nisi in quinque exemplaribus, non dubito tamen quin præferenda sit ei quæ jamdudum invaluerat. Non video enim quid significent hæc verba, serpentinis crinibus pullantes. Agnovit Rigaltius hoc esse verum. In erratis enim monuit reponendum esse crinibus, Horatius, lib. III, ode 31: Intortis capillis Eumenidum recreantur angues. Idem epodon V: Canidia brevibus implicata viperis crines. Seneca Medea: Adeste sceleris ultrices deæ crinem solutis squalidæ serpentibus. Lucanus lib. VI: Et coma vipereis substringitur horrida sertis. Ludovicus Cælius Rhodiginus, lib. I, cap. 40, refert ex Avicenna serpentes ex mulierum præcipue capillis concipi. Similem errorem notavimus in tomo secundo Capitularium, pag. 987.
With locks. Although this reading is found in only five copies, I do not doubt that it is to be preferred to the one that had long prevailed. For I do not see what these words mean, sprouting with serpentine [shoots]. Rigault recognized that this is the true reading, for in his errata he noted that crinibus should be restored. Horace, book III, ode 31: the snakes of the Furies are refreshed in their twisted hair. The same, Epode 5: Canidia, her locks entwined with short vipers. Seneca's Medea: Be present, avenging goddesses of crime, foul with hair of loosened serpents. Lucan, book VI: And her bristling hair is bound up with viper garlands. Ludovico Celio Rodigino, book I, chap. 40, reports from Avicenna that serpents are bred chiefly from women's hair. We noted a similar error in the second volume of the Capitularies, p. 987.
(printed under page 641)
Page
- running head: 1179 DE HÆRETICORUM BA (cut off at the image edge)
- marginal letters: A ‹Nec enim potest accipi›; B ‹num Deum Christum ?›; C ‹Hugonis de Sancto Victore› (in Baluze's notes, not set); D ‹Cassiodorus, lib. VI› (in Baluze's notes, not set)
- old-edition numerals: 1123 after ‹Cum vero›
eos qui in Deum blasphemant remissionem peccatorum dari judicat? Dat honorem Deo qui foris de adultera et fornicaria nasci Deo filios asseverat? Dat honorem Deo qui unitatem et veritatem de divina lege venientem non tenens haereses contra Ecclesiam vindicat? Dat honorem Deo qui haereticorum amicus et inimicus Christianorum sacerdotes Dei veritatem Christi et Ecclesiae unitatem tuentes abstinendos putat? Si sic honor Deo datur si sic a cultoribus et sacerdotibus ejus Dei timor et disciplina servatur, abjiciamus arma, manus demus in captivitatem, tradamus diabolo ordinationem Evangelii, dispositionem Christi, majestatem Dei, divinae militiae sacramenta solvantur, castrorum coelestium signa prodantur, succumbat et cedat Ecclesia haereticis, lux tenebris, fides perfidiae, spes desperationi, ratio errori, immortalitas morti, charitas odio, veritas mendacio, Christus Antichristo. Merito et sic in dies singulos schismata et haereses surgunt, crebrius atque uberius excrescunt, et serpentinis crinibus pullulantes adversus Ecclesiam Dei majoribus viribus venenorum suorum virus expromunt, dum illis advocatione quorumdam et auctoritas praestatur et firmitas, dum baptisma eorum defenditur, dum fides, dum veritas proditur, dum id quod contra Ecclesiam foris geritur intus in ipsa Ecclesia vindicatur.
those who blaspheme against God judges that remission of sins is given? Does he give honour to God who asserts that sons are born to God outside, from an adulteress and a harlot? Does he give honour to God who, not holding the unity and truth that comes from the divine law, defends heresies against the Church? Does he give honour to God who, being 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 kept away from? If honour is thus given to God, if thus the fear of God and discipline are kept by His worshippers and priests, let us throw away our arms, let us give our hands into captivity, let us hand over to the devil the ordinance of the Gospel, the disposition of Christ, the majesty of God; let the sacraments of the divine warfare be dissolved, let the standards of the heavenly camp be betrayed, let the Church give way and yield to heretics, light to darkness, faith to faithlessness, hope to despair, reason to error, immortality to death, charity to hatred, truth to falsehood, Christ to Antichrist. Deservedly, too, in this way schisms and heresies rise up day by day, grow out more frequently and more abundantly, and, sprouting with serpent locks, pour out against the Church of God with greater strength the poison of their venoms, while authority and firmness are furnished to them by the advocacy of certain men, while their baptism is defended, while faith, while truth is betrayed, while that which is done outside against the Church is defended inside in the Church itself.
IX. Quod si est apud nos, frater dilectissime, Dei timor, si tenor praevalet fidei, si custodimus
IX. But if there is among us, most beloved brother, the fear of God, if the steadfastness of faith prevails, if we keep
Editors' notes and page, col. 1180
Page
- running head: [...]TICORUM BAPTISMATE. 1180
- marginal letters: A eos qui in Deum blasphemant; B succumbat et cedat Ecclesia; C (98) Castrorum caelestium; D (1) Crinibus. Quamvis
- old-edition numerals: 1134 after divinae
- other: ligature doubt raised by the check (text not changed): margin C "Castrorum caelestium" | page prints cœlestium (coelestium); text NOT changed
Christi praecepta, si incorruptam atque inviolatam Sponsae ejus sanctitatem tuemur, si habent sensibus et cordibus nostris verba Domini dicentis: Putas cum venerit Filius hominis, inven⟨i⟩et fidem in terra (Luc. XVIII, 3)? quia fideles Dei milites, qui Deo fide et religione sincera militamus, commissa nobis divinitus castra fideli virtute servemus. Nec consuetudo quae apud quosdam obrepserat impedire debet quominus veritas praevaleat et vincat. Nam consuetudo sine veritate vetustas erroris est. Propter quod, relicto errore, sequamur veritatem, scientes quia et apud Esdram veritas vincit, sicut scriptum est: Veritas manet et invalescit in aeternum, et vivit et obtinet in saecula saeculorum. Nec est apud eam accipere personam ne⟨c⟩ differentias, sed quae sunt justa facit, nec est in judicio ejus iniquum, sed fortitudo, et regnum et majestas et potestas omnium saeculorum. Benedictus Dominus Deus veritatis (III Esdr. IV, 34-40). Quam veritatem nobis Christus ostendens in Evangelio suo dicit: Ego sum veritas (Joan. XIV, 6). Propter quod si in Christo sumus et Christum in nobis habemus, si manemus in veritate, et veritas in nobis manet, ea quae sunt vera et recta teneamus.
Christ's precepts, if we guard the sanctity of His Bride uncorrupted and inviolate, if the words of the Lord have [their place] in our senses and hearts when He says: Do you think that when the Son of Man comes, He will find faith on the earth? (Luke 18:8), seeing that we, faithful soldiers of God, who serve as soldiers for God with sincere faith and religion, should keep with faithful valour the camp divinely entrusted to us. Nor ought custom, which had crept in among some, to prevent truth from prevailing and conquering. For custom without truth is the antiquity of error. Wherefore, having abandoned error, let us follow truth, knowing that in Esdras too truth conquers, as it is written: Truth remains and grows strong for ever, and lives and prevails for ages of ages. Nor is there with it any accepting of persons or of distinctions, but it does the things that are just, nor is there anything unjust in its judgement, but strength, and the kingdom and the majesty and the power of all ages. Blessed be the Lord God of truth (1 Esd. 4:34–40). Showing this truth to us, Christ says in His Gospel: I am the truth (John 14:6). Wherefore, if we are in Christ and have Christ in us, if we remain in the truth and the truth remains in us, let us hold fast to those things which are true and right.
X. Fit autem studio praesumptionis et contumaciae ut quis magis sua prava et falsa defendat quam ad alterius recta et vera consentiat. Cui rei prospiciens beatus apostolus Paulus ad Timotheum scribit et monet episcopum non litigiosum, nec contentiosum, sed mitem et docibilem esse debere (II Tim. II, 24). Docibilis autem ille est qui est ad dicendi patientiam lenis et mitis. Oportet enim episcopum non tantum docere, sed et discere, quia et ille melius docet qui quotidie crescit et proficit discendo meliora. Quod ipsum quoque idem apostolus Paulus docet praemonens ut si alii sedenti melius revelatum fuerit, prior taceat (I Cor. XIV, 30). In compendio est autem apud religiosas et simplices
X. But it comes about through the zeal of presumption and obstinacy that a man would rather defend his own wrong and false views than assent to another's right and true ones. Foreseeing this, the blessed apostle Paul writes to Timothy and admonishes that a bishop ought to be not litigious, nor contentious, but gentle and teachable (2 Tim. 2:24). Now he is teachable who is mild and gentle towards patience in learning. For a bishop ought not only to teach but also to learn, since he too teaches better who daily grows and advances by learning better things. This very thing the same apostle Paul also teaches, admonishing beforehand that if something better has been revealed to another who is sitting by, the first should be silent (1 Cor. 14:30). But it is a short way among religious and simple
Editors' notes and page, col. 1181
Footnotes
(2) ‹anchor: inviolatam› · call in col 1181
(printed under page 642) (2) Inviolatam. Codex Fuxensis, immaculatam.
Inviolate. The Foix manuscript has immaculate.
(printed under page 642)
(3) ‹anchor: sine veritate› · call in col 1181
(printed under page 642) (3) Consuetudo sine veritate. Citat hunc locum, sed non nominato Cypriano, Angelus Politianus in præfatione Miscellaneorum suorum. Ait enim: Pulchre sic ait quidam: Consuetudo sine veritate vetustas erroris est. Citat etiam Gratianus dist. 8, cap. Consuetudo. Vide notas ad epistolam LXXI, pag. 498.
Custom without truth. Angelo Poliziano quotes this passage, though without naming Cyprian, in the preface to his Miscellanea. He says: A certain writer puts it finely: Custom without truth is the antiquity of error. Gratian also cites it, Distinction 8, chapter Consuetudo. See the notes on Letter 71, p. 498.
(printed under page 642)
(4) ‹anchor: nec contentiosum› · call in col 1181
(printed under page 642) (4) Nec contentiosum. Hæc non comparebant in editione Erasmi. Manutius et Morellius induxerunt. Pamelius expunxit, quia non invenerat in codice Camberonensi. Sane desunt in quatuor libris veteribus. Sed habentur in aliis duodecim et in duobus Bodleianis.
Nor quarrelsome. These words did not appear in Erasmus's edition. Manutius and Morel brought them in. Pamelius struck them out because he had not found them in the Cambron manuscript. They are indeed lacking in four old books. But they are found in twelve others and in two Bodleian ones.
(printed under page 642)
(5) ‹anchor: Errorem deponere (lemma; call above the visible foot)› · call in col 1181 or 1182 (not visible in these images)
(printed under page 642) (5) Errorem deponere. Sanctus papa Gregorius in epistola ad sanctum Augustinum: Bonarum quippe mentium est ibi culpam agnoscere ubi culpa non est. Innocentius III, apud Bzovium an. 1206, § 6, Bonarum mentium est ibi timere culpam ubi culpa minime reperitur. Contra Quintilianus lib. VI, cap. 4: Nam culpam, præsertim deprehensam, pertinaciter tueri altera culpa est. Hieronymus lib. I, adversus Rufinum: Melius est te pænitere facti tui quam et martyrem in calumnia et deceptos in errore persistere. Nec erubescas de commutatione sententiæ. Non est tantæ auctoritatis et famæ ut errasse te pæniteat. Item in Epistola ad Pammachium de optimo genere interpretandi: Errasse humanum est et confiteri errorem prudentis. Et in epistola ad Pammachium et Oceanum adversus errores Origenis: Secunda post naufragium tabula est humiliter confiteri. Et in epistola ad Marcellam de quinque quæstionibus Novi Testamenti; Non memini me hoc aliquando dixisse; et si dixissem, non essem in errore pertinax. Rufinus, lib. II adversus Hieronymum: Certum est autem errorem præcessisse ubi emendatio subsecuta est. Augustinus sermone CLXX, de verbis Apostoli: Humanum fuit errasse. Diabolicum est per animositatem in errore manere. Idipsum quoque dixit sanctus Joannes Chrysostomus in parænesi prima ad Theodorum lapsum: Nam peccasse est humanum, perdurasse autem in flagitiis non humanum est, sed potius diabolicum. Item Augustinus, in epistola ad Celerem: Turpe est mutare sententiam, sed veram et rectam; nam stultam et noxiam et laudabile et salubre est, Sicut autem constantia non sinit hominem depravari, sic pertinacia non sinit corrigi.
To lay aside error. The holy Pope Gregory, in his letter to Saint Augustine: For it is the mark of good minds to acknowledge a fault where there is no fault. Innocent III, in Bzovius under the year 1206, § 6: It is the mark of good minds to fear a fault where no fault at all is found. On the other side, Quintilian, book VI, chap. 4: For to defend a fault stubbornly, especially one that has been detected, is a second fault. Jerome, book I Against Rufinus: It is better for you to repent of what you did than for the martyr to persist under calumny and the deceived in error. And do not blush at changing your opinion. You are not of such authority and fame as to be ashamed of having erred. Again, in the letter to Pammachius on the best kind of translating: To have erred is human, and to confess the error is the part of a wise man. And in the letter to Pammachius and Oceanus against the errors of Origen: The second plank after shipwreck is to confess humbly. And in the letter to Marcella on five questions of the New Testament: I do not remember ever having said this; and had I said it, I would not be stubborn in error. Rufinus, book II Against Jerome: It is certain that error has gone before where correction has followed. Augustine, Sermon 170, on the words of the Apostle: To have erred was human. To remain in error out of animosity is diabolical. Saint John Chrysostom said the very same in the first exhortation to Theodore after his fall: For to have sinned is human, but to have persisted in wickedness is not human but rather diabolical. Again Augustine, in the letter to Celer: It is shameful to change one's opinion, but only a true and right one; for to change a foolish and harmful one is both praiseworthy and wholesome. And as constancy does not let a man be corrupted, so stubbornness does not let him be corrected.
(printed under page 642)
(6) ‹anchor: Si … canalis (lemma; call above the visible foot)› · call in col 1181 or 1182 (not visible in these images)
(printed under page 642) (6) Si… canalis. Hieronymus in epistola ad Marcum Celedensem: Si rivus tenuiter fluit, non est alvei culpa, sed fontis.
If … the channel. Jerome, in the letter to Marcus of Chalcis: If the stream flows thinly, the fault is not the bed's but the spring's.
(printed under page 642)
Page
- running head: 1181 PARS I. — MONUMENTA (cut off at the image edge)
- marginal letters: A ‹Christi praecepta, si incorruptam›; B ‹fortitudo, et regnum et majestas›; C ‹dicendi patientiam lenis et mitis›; D ‹Pamelius expunxit› (in the footnotes)
- old-edition numerals: 1135 after ‹nobis›
- misprints kept as printed (Q2, checked on the page): "dicendi patientiam" (for discendi; the English renders the sense "learning"); broken type "inven:et" and "ne:" set as inven⟨i⟩et, ne⟨c⟩; the Luke reference is printed XVIII, 3 (the verse is 18:8, as the English gives).
mentes et errorem deponere et invenire atque eruere veritatem. Nam si ad divinae traditionis caput et originem revertamur, cessat error humanus, et sacramentorum coelestium ratione perspecta, quidquid sub caligine ac nube tenebrarum obscurum latebat in lucem veritatis aperitur. Si canalis aquam ducens, qui copiose prius et largiter profluebat, subito deficiat, nonne ad fontem pergitur, ut illic defectionis ratio noscatur, utrumne arescentibus venis in capite unda siccaverit, an vero integra inde et plena procurrens in medio itinere destiterit; ut si vitio interrupti aut bibuli canalis effectum est, quo minus aqua continua perseveranter ac jugiter flueret, refecto et confirmato canali ad usum atque ad potum civitatis aqua collecta eadem ubertate atque integritate repraesentetur qua de fonte proficiscitur. Quod et nunc facere oportet Dei sacerdotes praecepta divina servantes, et si in aliquo nutaverit et vacillaverit veritas, ad originem Dominicam et ad evangelicam atque apostolicam traditionem revertamur, et inde surgat actus nostri ratio, unde et ordo et origo surrexit
minds both to lay aside error and to find and dig out the truth. For if we return to the head and origin of the divine tradition, human error ceases, and once the reason of the heavenly sacraments has been perceived, whatever lay hidden and obscure under the gloom and cloud of darkness is opened into the light of truth. If a channel carrying water, which formerly flowed forth copiously and abundantly, suddenly fails, does one not go to the spring, so that the reason for the failure may be learned there, whether the water has dried up at the head because the veins are drying out, or whether, running forth from there whole and full, it has stopped midway along its course; so that, if it has come about through the fault of a broken or leaking channel that the water did not flow continuously, steadily and unceasingly, once the channel has been repaired and strengthened, the water gathered for the use and drink of the city may be presented with the same abundance and purity with which it sets out from the spring. This the priests of God, keeping the divine precepts, ought to do now as well: and if in any respect the truth has wavered and tottered, let us return to the Lord's origin and to the evangelical and apostolic tradition, and let the reason of our conduct arise from that from which both order and origin arose
XI Traditum est enim nobis quod sit unus Deus, et Christus unus, et una spes, et fides una (Ephes. IV, 5), 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 vindicat, sacramentum divinae traditionis impugnat. Cujus unitatis sacramentum expressum videmus etiam in Cantico canticorum ex persona Christi dicentis: Hortus conclusus, soror mea, sponsa, fons signatus, puteus aquae vivae, paradisus cum fructu pomorum (Cant. IV, 12, 13). Si autem Ecclesia ejus hortus conclusus est et fons signatus, quomodo in eumdem hortum introire aut bibere de fonte ejus potest qui in Ecclesia non est? Item Petrus ipse quoque demonstrans et vindicans unitatem mandavit et monuit nisi per unnm
XI For it has been handed down to us that there is one God, and one Christ, and one hope, and one faith (Eph. 4:5), and one Church, and one baptism, established only in the one Church; whoever departs from this unity must of necessity be found with heretics: and while he defends them against the Church, he attacks the sacrament of the divine tradition. The sacrament of this unity we see expressed also in the Song of Songs, in the person of Christ, Who says: A garden enclosed is my sister, my bride, a fountain sealed, a well of living water, a paradise with the fruit of apples (Song 4:12–13). But if His Church is a garden enclosed and a fountain sealed, how can one who is not in the Church enter into that same garden or drink from its fountain? Likewise Peter himself also, showing and defending unity, commanded and admonished that except through one
Editors' notes and page, col. 1182
Page
- running head: MONUMENTA VETERUM. 1182
- marginal letters: A ‹plices mentes et errorem›; B ‹collecta eadem ubertate›; C ‹sus, soror mea, sponsa›; D (beside the foot-of-page notes, line ‹rorem praecessisse ubi emendatio›, not in the text block)
- old-edition numerals: 1136 after ‹et ad›
- other: misprints kept as printed: "unnm" (for unum) in ‹nisi per unnm›; no full stop after ‹origo surrexit› nor after the section numeral ‹XI›. The footnote calls (5) and (6) stand in this column; their notes are filed under col 1181 (page 642).
solum baptisma unius Ecclesiae salvari nos non posse. In arca, inquit, Noe pauci, id est, octo animae hominum salvae factae sunt per aquam, quod et vos similiter salvos faciet baptisma (I Petr. III, 20, 21). Quam brevi et spiritali compendio unitatis sacramentum manifestavit! Nam ut in illo mundi baptismo, quo iniquitas antiqua purgata est, qui in arca Noe non fuit, non potuit per aquam salvatus fieri, ita nec nunc potest per baptismum salvatus videri qui baptizatus in Ecclesia non est, quae ad arcae unius sacramentum Dominica unitate fundata est.
sole baptism of the one Church we cannot be saved. In the ark, he says, of Noah few, that is, eight souls of men were saved through water, which likewise baptism will also save you (1 Pet. 3:20–21). With how brief and spiritual a summary has he made manifest the sacrament of unity! For just as in that baptism of the world, by which the ancient iniquity was purged, whoever was not in the ark of Noah could not be made saved through water, so neither now can anyone be seen to be made saved through baptism who has not been baptized in the Church, which has been founded by the Lord's unity after the sacrament of the one ark.
XIL. Observatur itaque a nobis et tenetur, frater charissime, explorata et perspecta veritate, ut omnes qui ex quacunque haeresi ad Ecclesiam convertuntur, Ecclesiae unico et legitimo baptisma baptizentur, exceptis his qui baptizati in Ecclesia prius fuerant, et sic ad haereticos transierant. Illos enim oportet, cum redeunt, acta poenitentia per manus impositionem solam recipi et in ovile, unde erraverant, a pastore restitui. Opto te frater charissime, semper bene valere.
XII. It is therefore observed and held by us, dearest brother, the truth having been examined and clearly seen, that all who are converted to the Church from any heresy whatever should be baptized with the one and lawful baptism of the Church, except those who had previously been baptized in the Church and had in that state passed over to the heretics. For these, when they return, must be received after doing penance through the imposition of hands alone, and restored by the shepherd to the fold from which they had strayed. I wish you, dearest brother, always to fare well.
Editors' notes and page, col. 1183
Variae lectiones
(printed under page 643)
(62) ‹anchor: unico Ecclesiae baptismo› · call in col 1183
⁶² Unico pœnitentiæ baptismo Cod. Lamon.
With the one baptism of penance: Lamoignon's manuscript.
(printed under page 643)
(7) ‹anchor: octo animae hominum› · call in col 1183
(printed under page 643) (7) Octo animæ hominum. Sic restituimus hunc locum ex fide octo librorum nostrorum et sex Anglicanorum. Nam et infra in epistola LXXVI, pag. 152, ita etiam legitur ut istic. Sane vox hominum exstat in epistola sancti Petri nec apud Hieronymum in dialogo adversus Luciferianos.
Eight souls of men. So we have restored this passage on the authority of eight of our books and six English ones. For below, in Letter 76, p. 152, it is also read as here. Indeed the word of men is found in Saint Peter's epistle nor in Jerome in the dialogue against the Luciferians [so printed; the sense seems to require "is not found"].
(printed under page 643)
(8) ‹anchor: salvatus fieri› · call in col 1183
(printed under page 643) (8) Salvatus videri. Editiones habent salvus. At ego reposui salvatus, secutus in hoc auctoritatem tredecim exemplarium nostrorum et quatuor Anglicanorum.
To seem saved. The editions have safe. But I have restored saved, following in this the authority of thirteen of our copies and four English ones.
(printed under page 643)
(9) ‹anchor: Dominica unitate› · call in col 1183
(printed under page 643) (9) Dominica unitate. Vetus codex Remigianus et tres Anglicani habent dominicæ observationis virtute.
By the Lord's unity. The old Saint-Remi manuscript and three English ones have by the power of the Lord's observance.
(printed under page 643)
(10) ‹anchor: ad haereticos transierant› · call in col 1184 (in the paragraph moved here on receipt)
(printed under page 643) (10) Ad hæreticos transierant. Unus codex regius, ad hæreticos discessisse monstrantur. Lectionem a nobis retentam confirmare videntur hæc Cypriani verba ex epistola LXXI, pag. 127, et a nobis ad hæreticos transisse.
They had gone over to the heretics. One royal manuscript has they are shown to have departed to the heretics. The reading we have kept seems confirmed by these words of Cyprian from Letter 71, p. 127: and to have gone over from us to the heretics.
(printed under page 643)
(11) ‹anchor: Magno filio› · call in col 1183
(printed under page 643) (11) Magno filio. Hæc certo ostendunt, ut putavit etiam Baronius, hunc hominem fuisse de plebe, id est laicum. Cui sententiæ, quæ mihi videtur optima, ego lubenter assentior. Nuperus tamen auctor Vitæ sancti Cypriani contendit fuisse episcopum, ad eamque suam opinionem probandam affert exemplum ex epistola LXI ad Euchratium episcopum, in cujus calce Cyprianus ait: Opto te, fili charissime, semper bene valere. Sane ita scriptum est in editionibus Manutii, Pamelii, Rigaltii, et in Anglicana. At veteres editiones habent frater charissime. Quod modo nos reposuimus auctoritatem secuti veterum editionum et veterum librorum. Sentit Reinhartus vitium editionis Rigaltianæ, quam fere sequebatur, et emisit vocem filii, scribens simpliciter: Opto te, charissime, semper bene valere. Itaque restituta vera lectione, ruit argumentatio auctoris Vitæ sancti Cypriani. Quod vero Cyprianus Magnum laicum vocat filium, descendit istud ex disciplina veterum episcoporum et presbyterorum, qui, ut Hieronymus in Epistola ad Salvinam de Viduitate servanda ait, pro officio sacerdotii omnes Christianos filiorum loco diligebant. Vide notas nostras ad Epistolam nonam Salviani.
To his son Magnus. These words show for certain, as Baronius also thought, that this man was of the people, that is, a layman. I gladly assent to this opinion, which seems to me the best. Yet a recent author of a Life of Saint Cyprian contends that he was a bishop, and to prove his opinion adduces an example from Letter 61 to Bishop Euchratius, at the end of which Cyprian says: I wish you, dearest son, always good health. It is indeed so written in the editions of Manutius, Pamelius, Rigault, and in the English one. But the old editions have dearest brother, which we have now restored, following the authority of the old editions and the old books. Reinhart perceived the fault of Rigault's edition, which he generally followed, and dropped the word son, writing simply: I wish you, dearest, always good health. So, with the true reading restored, the argument of the author of the Life of Saint Cyprian collapses. That Cyprian calls Magnus, a layman, his son derives from the practice of the ancient bishops and presbyters who, as Jerome says in the Letter to Salvina on keeping widowhood, by the duty of the priesthood loved all Christians as sons. See our notes on the ninth Letter of Salvian.
(printed under page 643)
(12) ‹anchor: dicimus omnes› · call in col 1183
(printed under page 643) (12) Dicimus omnes. Apud Gratianum XXIV, q. I, scriptum est didicimus.
We say that all. In Gratian, [Causa] 24, question 1, we have learned is written.
(printed under page 643) (13) Omnes omnino qui secum. Ita omnes veteres editiones ante Manutianam, quæ addit hæreticos, uti etiam additur apud Gratianum. Sed eam vocem ego non reperi nisi in tribus libris veteribus. Cum vero viderem omnes veteres editiones, XXII libros nostros, et sex Anglicanos eam non habere, arbitratus sum eam non esse retinendam. Nam et absque illa recte constat sensus.
Absolutely all who [were not] with him. So all the old editions before the Manutian, which adds heretics, as it is also added in Gratian. But I have found that word in only three old books. And since I saw that all the old editions, twenty-two of our books, and six English ones lack it, I judged that it should not be kept. For the sense stands properly without it.
(printed under page 643)
Page
- running head: 1183 DE HÆRETICORUM BAP (cut off at the image edge); full: 1183 DE HÆRETICORUM BAPTISMATE 1184
- marginal letters: A ‹solum baptisma unius Ecclesiae›; A (col 1184) ‹XIL. Observatur itaque›; B ‹CYPRIANUS MAGNO FILIO›; C ‹(8) Salvatus videri› (in the Baluze notes at the page foot); D (none)
- old-edition numerals: 1137 after ‹manus impositionem› (col 1184 paragraph, set here); 1188 after ‹lavacrum› (next unit; read on the page as 1188, but the sequence 1135 → 1137 → 1138 suggests a bold 3 read as 8: UNSURE)
- other: These full-width lines are not set; all are cut off at the right edge. They are the title "EPISTOLA S. CYPRIANI" and the subtitle "DE BAPTIZANDIS NOVATIANIS ET DE IIS QUI IN L..." between the two text pieces. The editors' Argumentum ("Respondetur Magno inquienti an a Novatiano...") is also printed full width and cut off, so it is not set. The bold oldnum is read as 1188 but could be 1138 (UNSURE). In "et vero et unico" the second "et" looks like "ct" in the image; it is probably a damaged e and is set as et (UNSURE). The commas after "ejus" and "fidei" are as printed. The column ends with "haere-", broken across the column break. The Variae lectiones and the Baluze notes at the page foot are left for the later pass.
- other: a full-width band stands across cols 1183/1184 in mid-page: the 1 paragraph(s) above it in col 1184 are set here, after the 1 above it in col 1183 (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 MAGNO FILIO SALUTEM. (another unit); not set here
- misprints kept as printed (Q2, checked on the page): "XIL." (for XII.; the English gives XII.); "legitimo baptisma baptizentur" (for baptismo; the English renders the sense).
Editors' notes and page, col. 1184
Footnotes
(10) ‹anchor: et sic ad haereticos transierant› · call in col 1184 (printed after ‹transierant›; the paragraph is set under col 1183, and the note's text is filed under col 1183)
(printed under page 643)
(63) ‹anchor: sed omnes omnino› · call in col 1184
⁶³ Hæreticos addit Oxon.
Heretics is added by the Oxford edition.
Steph. Baluzii notae
(printed under page 643)
(13) ‹anchor: qui secum non essent› · call in col 1184
(printed under page 643)
Page
- running head: …TICORUM BAPTISMATE 1184 (left part of head cut off at image edge; column number printed with damaged type, reads like 4184)
- marginal letters: A ‹XIL. Observatur itaque›; B ‹ticos et schismaticos›; C ‹fere sequebatur› (in Baluze's notes, not set); D (none)
- old-edition numerals: 1137 after ‹impositionem›
- other: the 1 paragraph(s) of this column above the full-width band are set under col 1183 (reading order, moved on receipt)
- other: the text of this column below the full-width band belongs to the next unit; not set here (rail-only part)