PL 6 · cols. 9–46

Notitiae biographicae necnon et bibliographicae de sanctis pontificibus Marcellino, Marcello, Eusebio, Melchiade

Editors' preface

PL 6:9

NOTITIAE BIOGRAPHICAE

BIOGRAPHICAL

NECNON ET BIBLIOGRAPHICAE

AND ALSO BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTICES

DE SANCTIS PONTIFICIBUS ROMANIS

OF THE HOLY ROMAN PONTIFFS

MARCELLINO, MARCELLO, EUSEBIO, MELCHIADE,

MARCELLINUS, MARCELLUS, EUSEBIUS, MELCHIADES,

ET DE RHETICIO AEDUENSI EPISCOPO.

AND OF RHETICIUS, BISHOP OF AUTUN.

SANCTUS MARCELLINUS PAPA.

SAINT MARCELLINUS, POPE.

§ I. — Quando et quamdiu sederit.

§ I. — When and for how long he sat.

Eusebius hunc papam annis novem Ecclesiam gubernasse tradit, atque ejus mortem in Chronico ad annum Christi 304 refert. Ita ille annos octo cum uno inchoato pro novem computans, cum Bucheriano catalogo consentit, in quo legimus: « Marcellinus annis VIII, mensibus III, diebus XXV, fuit temporibus Diocletiani et Maximiani ex die pridie Kalendas Julias, a consulibus Diocletiano VI et Constantio II, usque in consulatum Diocletiani IX, et Maximiani VIII. Unde sequitur ut Marcellini electio seu ordinatio anno 296, Junii XXX die, adeoque feria tertia; ac mors anno 304, Octobris XXIV die consignandae sint, licet festum ejus plerorumque martyrologiorum auctoritate XXVI Aprilis die celebretur.

Eusebius records that this pope governed the Church for nine years, and in his Chronicle he places his death at the year of Christ 304. Thus, counting eight years with one begun as nine, he agrees with the Bucherian catalogue, in which we read: “Marcellinus, VIII years, III months, XXV days; he was in the times of Diocletian and Maximian, from the day before the Kalends of July, from the consulship of Diocletian for the VI time and Constantius for the II, until the consulship of Diocletian for the IX time and Maximian for the VIII.” From this it follows that Marcellinus’s election or ordination is to be assigned to the year 296, on the XXX day of June, and so to a Tuesday; and his death to the year 304, on the XXIV day of October, although on the authority of most martyrologies his feast is celebrated on the XXVI day of April.

§ — II. De antiqua fabula qua Marcellinum idolis thus obtulisse vulgatum est.

§ — II. On the ancient tale by which it was spread abroad that Marcellinus offered incense to idols.

1. Marcellinum idolis thus obtulisse ac sacros libros tradidisse, jam ab Augustini aevo fama erat. Ejus auctores suspicatur is sanctus Doctor recentiores Donatistas. Ac primo quidem figmenti hujus falsitatem, lib. de unico Baptismo, contra Petilianum, cap. 16, n. 27, inde probat, quia nullo teste, nulla monimenti cujusquam firmitate fulciatur. « Quid ergo, inquit, opus est ut episcoporum romanae Ecclesiae, quos incredibilibus calumniis insectatus est (Petilianus), objecta ab eo crimina diluamus? Marcellinus et presbyteri ejus Melchiades, Marcellus et Silvester traditionis codicum divinorum et thurificationis ab eo crimine arguuntur: sed numquid in eo etiam convincuntur, aut convicti aliqua

1. That Marcellinus offered incense to idols and handed over the sacred books was already the report from the age of Augustine. That holy Doctor suspects the later Donatists of being its authors. And first, in the book On the One Baptism, against Petilian, chapter 16, number 27, he proves the falsity of this fiction from the fact that it is supported by no witness and by the firmness of no record whatever. “What need is there, then,” he says, “for us to wash away the crimes laid by him against the bishops of the Roman Church, whom he (Petilian) has assailed with incredible calumnies? Marcellinus and his priests Melchiades, Marcellus and Silvester are accused by him of the crime of handing over the divine books and of offering incense: but are they also convicted in it, or, convicted, are they shown by any

Editors' notes and page, col. 9

Page

running head: (none)
marginal letters: A § I. — Quando et quamdiu sederit.; B § — II. De antiqua fabula qua Marcellinum idolis thus; C et Silvester traditionis codicum divinorum et
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: the whole column (Notitiae on Pope Marcellinus, beginning "Eusebius hunc papam"); full-width lines not set: the title "NOTITIAE BIOG[RAPHICAE] NECNON ET BIBL[IOGRAPHICAE] DE SANCTIS PONTIFIC[IBUS] MARCELLINO, MARCELLO, EU[SEBIO] ET DE RHETICIO AEDUE[NSI]" and the heading "SANCTUS MARCEL[LINUS]" across the top of the page; worn type read as hunc, gubernasse, inchoato, 304 (the image shows something like bunc, guberuasse, incboato, 30i), UNSURE whether these are true misprints; the opening quotation marks before Marcellinus annis and before Quid ergo have no visible close in this column; the word ali- is split at the column break; the printer's signature Patrol. VI. is not set
running head: (none; first page of the piece, no running head printed)
marginal letters: A § I. — Quando et quamdiu sederit (level with right column's qua documentorum); B § — II. De antiqua fabula (level with eis una cum); C et Silvester traditionis codicum (level with rint quidem)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: full-width title band set here above § I. per driver. A note-call mark printed before SANCTUS MARCELLINUS PAPA is omitted. "ali-|qua" split at the column break set whole as "aliqua" here; col 10 begins with "documentorum". "inchoato": the h is printed in a form that resembles b; read as inchoato. The quotation from the Bucherian catalogue opens with « and no closing » is printed; the English closes the quotation after VIII. Small-capital numerals set as capitals. Signature "PATROL. VI." at the foot not set.

PL 6:10

documentorum firmitate monstrantur? Ipse sceleratos et sacrilegos fuisse dicit: ego innocentes fuisse respondeo. Quid laborem probare defensionem meam, cum ille nec tenuiter probare conatus sit accusationem suam? » Ex quibus Augustini verbis cuique exploratum est, idem crimen non in Marcellinum solum, sed etiam in presbyteros ejus Marcellum, Melchiadem et Silvestrum, qui ipsi postea successerunt, fuisse intentum. Si ergo illi omnino insontes atque hujus sceleris puri; neque magis reus videri debet Marcellinus. Et hoc quidem nobis indubitatum erit, ubi calumniae hujus causam et originem perspectam habuerimus.

firmness of documents? He says they were wicked and sacrilegious: I answer that they were innocent. Why should I labour to prove my defence, when he has not even slightly attempted to prove his accusation?” From these words of Augustine it is plain to anyone that the same crime was charged not against Marcellinus alone, but also against his priests Marcellus, Melchiades and Silvester, who themselves afterwards succeeded him. If, then, they were wholly guiltless and clean of this crime, neither ought Marcellinus to be thought any more guilty. And this will indeed be beyond doubt for us once we have perceived the cause and origin of this calumny.

2. Hanc prodit subinde Augustinus, cum fabulam illam ideo a recentioribus Donatistis excogitatam fuisse innuit, ut judicii, quo a Melchiade damnat⟨i⟩ fuerant, invidiam declinarent. Sed quid opus erat eis una cum Melchiade Marcellinum pontificem, necnon Marcellum et Silvestrum presbyteros infamare? Nimirum ut probabilior fieret ipsorum calumnia. Quocirca excogitandum eis fuit tempus quo thuris oblatio et sacrorum codicum traditio in Urbe exigebatur, simulque fingendum eos, qui in clero romano tum eminebant, in eamdem impietatem fuisse abductos. Nam si de uno Melchiade hoc pervulgassent, quis crederet tantum crimen inultum relinqui potuisse? At credibilior fit haec impunitas, cum et ipse, cujus erat punire, et qui proxime post ipsum praesunt, ejusdem sceleris conscii fiunt. Augustinus vero loco citato novos Donatistas mendacii firma illa ratione convincit, quod majores illorum, seu ante, seu post Melchiadis judicium, de illo crimine ne cogitarint quidem. « De quo, inquit, judicio cum majores istorum importunissima pervicacia memorato imperatori (Constantino) quererentur, quod non plene nec

Augustine next reveals this, when he hints that the tale was devised by the later Donatists in order to turn aside the odium of the judgement by which they had been condemned by Melchiades. But what need was there for them to defame, together with Melchiades, the pontiff Marcellinus, and also the priests Marcellus and Silvester? Doubtless so that their calumny might become more plausible. Therefore they had to devise a time when the offering of incense and the handing over of the sacred books were being exacted in the City, and at the same time to pretend that those who were then eminent in the Roman clergy had been drawn into the same impiety. For if they had spread this abroad about Melchiades alone, who would believe that so great a crime could have been left unpunished? But this impunity becomes more credible when both he whose part it was to punish, and those who preside next after him, are made accomplices in the same crime. Augustine, however, in the place cited, convicts the new Donatists of lying by that firm argument, that their forebears, whether before or after the judgement of Melchiades, did not so much as think of that crime. “When,” he says, “their forebears with most importunate obstinacy complained of this judgement to the said emperor (Constantine), that not fully nor

Editors' notes and page, col. 10

Page

running head: (none visible; the page top holds a full-width title, see note)
marginal letters: A ‹qua documentorum firmitate›; B ‹non Marcellum et Silvestrum›; C ‹rint quidem. « De quo›; D (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: full-width title lines at page top not set (DISSERTATIONES? BIOGRAPHICAE ET BIBLIOGRAPHICAE DE PONTIFICIBUS ROMANIS ... MARCELLO, EUSEBIO, MELCHIADE, ... RETICIO AEDUENSI EPISCOPO; MARCELLINUS PAPA), cut off at left edge; the editors' dissertation text itself is set (editors' matter: ‹qua documentorum firmitate›); the "A" before "qua" is taken as the marginal letter, not the preposition (UNSURE); "damnat⟨i⟩" final letter not visible at line end; "1." at column foot taken as signature, not set; "quererentur" first letter poorly printed
running head: (none; first page of the piece, no running head printed)
marginal letters: A documentorum firmitate monstrantur; B eis una cum Melchiade; C rint quidem. « De quo
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: begins with "documentorum"; the preceding "ali-" joined to "aliqua" at the end of col 9. "damnat⟨i⟩": the final letter is not visible in the type at the line end (space before "fuerant"); supplied as lost. "praesunt" set as printed (one might expect praefuerunt). Signature numeral "1." at the foot not set.

PL 6:11

recte fuerit examinatum atque depromptum, nihil de Melchiadis traditione vel thurificatione dixerunt. Ad cujus audientiam nec venire utique debuerunt, hoc potius ante suggerentes imperatori, aut ut suggereretur instantes, quod apud traditorem codicum divinorum et idolorum sacrificiis inquinatum causam suam agere non deberent. Cum hoc ergo nec ante suggesserint, nec postea quam contra eos pro Caeciliano judicatum est, saltem victi et irati objiciendum putarint; quid nunc inanes tam sero connectunt calumnias: » Quis etiam sibi persuadeat tam publicum crimen ad Petiliani usque tempora ignotum atque sepultum permansisse, aut si non latuerit, tres presbyteros tanti criminis reos in primam Ecclesiae sedem, nullo reclamante, assumi, et christianissimi principis fidem ac benevolentiam conciliare sibi potuisse? Fide dignior est Theodoretus, qui, lib. i Hist. Eccl., c. 3, « Marcellinum in persecutione inclaruisse » testatur: « Μαρκελλῖνον τὸν ἐν τῷ διωγμῷ διαπρέψαντα; » quod ita interpretari licet, ut is persecutionis tempore digne et laudabiliter se gesserit, vel etiam ut ipse persecutionem fortiter perpessus, magnam sui nominis existimationem reliquerit.

rightly examined and set forth, they said nothing about the betrayal or the incense-offering of Melchiades. To his hearing they certainly ought not even to have come, but rather to have suggested this beforehand to the emperor, or to have pressed for it to be suggested, namely that they ought not to plead their case before a betrayer of the divine books, defiled by sacrifices to idols. Since, then, they neither suggested this beforehand, nor, after judgement had been given against them in favour of Caecilian, thought it fit to be objected at least when defeated and angry, why do they now string together empty calumnies so late?” Who, moreover, would persuade himself that so public a crime remained unknown and buried right down to the times of Petilian, or, if it was not hidden, that three presbyters guilty of so great a crime could be taken up into the first see of the Church with no one protesting, and could win for themselves the trust and goodwill of a most Christian prince? More worthy of belief is Theodoret, who, in book 1 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 3, testifies that «Marcellinus became illustrious in the persecution»: «Marcellinus, who distinguished himself in the persecution;» which may be interpreted thus, that he conducted himself worthily and laudably in the time of the persecution, or even that he himself, having bravely endured persecution, left behind a great esteem for his name.

3. Hinc funditus ruunt Sinuessani concilii acta, quibus, praeter rudem eorum et impolitam locutionem, multa absurda, quaedam secum pugnantia, alia cum dictis Petiliani, qui Marcellum, Melchiadem et Silvestrum thurificasse objectabat, non consentientia, necnon putidum atque iteratum summi pontificis, qui et mox martyrio coronandus ponitur, mendacium, et alia hujusmodi quam plura omnem adimunt auctoritatem. Hujus tamen concilii acta, quae cum supposititiis Silvestri et Xysti gestis in uno eodemque perantiquo codice Colbertino Langobardicis litteris exarato exhibentur, et, ut ex cognatione atque consensione styli judicare licet, eumdem habere videntur parentem, ad veterum exemplarium fidem, quae in novissimis conciliorum editionibus minime servata est, infra recudemus, necnon et duas epistolas, quas Isidorus Mercator Marcellino supposuit.

3. Hence the acts of the Council of Sinuessa collapse utterly, from which, besides their rude and unpolished diction, many absurdities, some things contradicting one another, others not agreeing with the statements of Petilian, who alleged that Marcellus, Melchiades and Silvester had offered incense, and moreover the rotten and repeated lie of the supreme pontiff, who is also represented as soon to be crowned with martyrdom, and very many other things of this kind, take away all authority. Nevertheless the acts of this council, which are presented together with the spurious acts of Silvester and Xystus in one and the same very ancient Colbertine codex written in Lombardic letters, and which, as one may judge from the kinship and agreement of the style, seem to have the same parent, we shall reprint below according to the fidelity of the old exemplars, which has been by no means preserved in the most recent editions of the councils, and also the two letters which Isidore Mercator falsely ascribed to Marcellinus.

§ III. — Vulgatae synodi Suessanae seu Sinuessanae de Marcellino papa gesta.

§ III. — The proceedings concerning Pope Marcellinus of the commonly received synod of Suessa or Sinuessa.

I. Urbani et Marcellini altercatio. — 1. Diocletiano et Maximiano Augustis, cum multi in vita sua mentis suae aspersae vacillitate mentiebantur origine dicentes, quod deorum superstitio vanitatis super sex sentirent, et ad sacrificandum eodem tempore multi inducerentur per pecuniam, ut thurificarent diis: Marcellino itaque urbis Romae episcopo venit quidam

I. The altercation of Urban and Marcellinus. — 1. When Diocletian and Maximian were Augusti, since many in their life were lying through the vacillation of their bespattered mind, saying by origin that the superstition of the gods felt of vanity above six, and at the same time many were induced by money to sacrifice, so that they offered incense to the gods: to Marcellinus, then, bishop of the city of Rome, there came a certain

Editors' notes and page, col. 11

Footnotes

(I.) ‹anchor: super sex sentirent› · call in col 11 I.—Super sex sentirent. Unus e mss., Adspersi mentis suæ vacillitate mentiebantur, origine dicentes, quod deorum superstitio vanitatis super se sentirent. Horum autem gestorum corrector hunc locum sic emendare conatus est : Mentis suæ facilitate aspersi, deorum mentiebantur originem, dicentes quod de eorum superstitione vanissima sentirent. Nonne legi posset..... dicentes quod deorum superstitionem vanitatis expertem esse sentirent?

I.—"Super sex sentirent." One of the manuscripts: "Sprinkled with the vacillation of their mind, they lied, saying by origin that the superstition of the gods of vanity they felt above themselves." The corrector of these Acts tried to emend this passage thus: "Sprinkled with the facility of their mind, they lied about the origin of the gods, saying what they thought of their most vain superstition." Could it not be read ..... "saying that they felt the superstition of the gods to be free of vanity"?

(lemma) ‹anchor: Adstantes› · note in col 12

Adstantes. Notandum illud, quo altercationis Urbanum inter et Marcellinum initæ arbitri deliguntur Diocletianus et Maximianus.

"Bystanders." Note this passage, in which Diocletian and Maximian are chosen as arbiters of the dispute begun between Urbanus and Marcellinus.

(lemma) ‹anchor: non difficultat› · note in col 12

Difficultat. Hoc est, non resistit, dedecet excandescere : horum autem corrector sic restituit : quoniam nullam nobis difficultatem exhibet qua offendamur : ex quo quanta sibi in verbis ac sententiis mutandis permiserit, perspicere est.

"Difficultat." That is, it does not resist; it is unbecoming to flare up. The corrector of these Acts, however, restored it thus: "since it presents us no difficulty by which we might be offended"; from which one may see how much licence he allowed himself in changing words and sentences.

(printed under page 9)

Page

running head: 11 DE MARCELLIN[O] (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A recte fuerit examinatum; B fidem ac benevolentiam conciliare; C alia hujusmodi quam plura; D tes, quod deorum superstitio
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 6:12

nomine Urbanus, qui erat pontifex Capitolii, et repletus multitudine malitiae coepit cum eo habere altercationem de thurificando diis; et dicens ad Marcellinum urbis Romae episcopum: « Si Christus vester, quem dicitis natum de virgine Maria, quid apud semetipsum prima luce missi Magi ab Herode obtulerunt ei munera? quae? aurum, thus et myrrham, id ut scirent sacerdotes, per quid placarent hunc, quem dicitis resurrexisse et sedere super. » Dicit ei Marcellinus episcopus: « Non obtulerunt ei, ut sacrificarent vanitati; sed ideo, ut Deum ac Dominum altissimum eum, quem negabant, ostenderent. » Urbanus ad eadem respondit, dicens: « Una nocte simul adstemus ante domnos imperatores invictissimos Diocletianum et Maximianum atque clementissimos principes, et dabo tibi quaestionem de thurificando. »

by name Urbanus, who was pontiff of the Capitol, and, filled with a multitude of malice, began to hold a dispute with him about offering incense to the gods; and saying to Marcellinus, bishop of the city of Rome: “If your Christ, Whom you say was born of the Virgin Mary, what gifts did the Magi, sent by Herod, offer Him at first light in His own presence? which? gold, incense and myrrh, so that the priests might know by what means they might appease Him, Whom you say has risen again and sits above.” Marcellinus the bishop says to him: “They did not offer to Him in order to sacrifice to vanity; but for this reason, that they might show Him, Whom they were denying, to be God and the Lord most high.” Urbanus replied to the same, saying: “Let us stand together one night before our lords the most invincible emperors Diocletian and Maximian, and most clement princes, and I will give you a debate about offering incense.”

2. Venientes autem die, quod dicunt Vulcanibus, dicit ei Urbanus: « Faciamus hinc et inde duas chartulas, quasi incrementa petitionum, et afferamus clementissimis principibus. » Fecerunt ambo simul, sicut dixerat Urbanus, et venientes ad sacratissimos principes offerebant eis. Marcellinus itaque, urbis Romae episcopus, fidem servans, Christum praedicans, dicit ad principes: « Quid mihi et vobis, principes terribiles universo mundo, quoniam vana est superstitio thurificandi? » Dicit autem Urbanus: « Loquere ad nos ac contra pontifices clementissimi atque invictissimi (clementissimos atque invictissimos) principes, quoniam deum Jovem et invictum Herculem corporei fabricantur, et Jovem quem dicimus coelum, terram mareque simul cum Saturno menstruantem? Quare ergo hoc Marcellinus pontifex sicut et ego non thurificat majestatibus? » Dicit itaque Diocletianus: « Non exsecrare hominem hunc, quoniam nostrae clementiae non difficultat, exhibet inflammari; sed ejus consilium accipiamus utrumque (uterque), quoniam non probavimus nostrae serenitati esse obscurum, nec contra deos immortales dare sententiam. » Romanus itaque et Alexander secreto dixerunt Diocletiano: « Si hunc, domine atque invictissime princeps, consilio tenueris blandimentis, omnem urbanam plebem habebis in unitate conservare, et gentes per sacrificia fidelissima objurgare. »

2. And coming on the day which they call Vulcanibus, Urbanus says to him: “Let us make, on this side and on that, two little papers, as if augmentations of petitions, and bring them to the most clement princes.” Both did so together, as Urbanus had said, and coming to the most sacred princes they offered them to them. Marcellinus therefore, bishop of the city of Rome, keeping the faith, preaching Christ, says to the princes: “What have I to do with you, princes terrible to the whole world, since the superstition of offering incense is vain?” But Urbanus says: “Speak to us and against the pontiffs, most clement and most invincible (most clement and most invincible) princes, since they make the god Jupiter and unconquered Hercules corporeal, and Jupiter, whom we call heaven, earth and sea, menstruating together with Saturn? Why then does this pontiff Marcellinus not offer incense to your majesties, as I too do?” Diocletian therefore says: “Do not curse this man, since it does not trouble our clemency, he shows himself to be inflamed; but let us each (both) receive his counsel, since we have not found it to be obscure to our serenity, nor to pass sentence against the immortal gods.” Romanus therefore and Alexander said secretly to Diocletian: “If, lord and most invincible prince, you hold this man by counsel with blandishments, you will have all the urban populace to keep in unity, and to rebuke the gentiles through most faithful sacrifices.”

II. De thurificatione Marcellini. — 3. Dicit autem Diocletianus ad Marcellinum, episcopum urbis Romae: « Video prudentiam tuam, quoniam magna est, ut nostra sit amicitia, quae diis et universo mundo sit (forte fuit) inimica. Veni itaque, et loquentiam tuam nostro facias incrementum favori. » Veniens autem

II. On the offering of incense by Marcellinus. — 3. And Diocletian says to Marcellinus, bishop of the city of Rome: “I see your prudence, since it is great, that our friendship may be, which is (perhaps was) hostile to the gods and to the whole world. Come therefore, and make your eloquence an increase to our favour.” And coming

Editors' notes and page, col. 12

Page

running head: DE MARCELLINO 12 (left part of the head cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A ‹nomine Urbanus, qui erat›; B ‹principes, et dabo tibi›; C ‹cimus coelum, terram›; D ‹Diocletianus ad Marcellinum›
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column begins mid-sentence with "nomine" and ends with "Veniens autem"; heading "De thurificatione" is heavily inked and hard to read, UNSURE; "Vulcanibus" set as printed (perhaps for Vulcanalibus), not marked as a misprint; colon after "episcopus" looks damaged, set as ":"; "coepit", "coelum" printed with œ; the page-foot ANNOTATIONES (Adstemus..., Difficultat...) are editors' commentary left for the later pass, and their heading runs across both columns and is cut off at the left edge

PL 6:13

ad templum Vestianum et ad Isidem, introduxit episcopum. Qui dum introissent, erant cum eo duo diaconi Galus et Innocentius, et tres presbyteri Urbanus, Castorius et Juvenalis. Dum vidissent eum introeuntem, non tamen mittentem et thurificantem, fugerunt hi omnes ad compresbyteros, et invenerunt eos in Vaticano palatii Neroniani, et dixerunt rem quam gestam vidissent. Euntes autem multi Christiani penus veritatis exemplum abierunt, et viderunt eum mittentem et thurificantem, et factum amicum principum. Qui abierunt ab eo, ut testimonium veritatis exhiberent, isti sunt : Bonosus, Maximus, Carpilio, Cyprianus, Olympius, Priscus, Hercules, Androphemus, Benenatus, Epiphanius, Crispinus, Victor, Theodolus, Alexander, Romanus, Bajulus, Quiriacus, Theodolus, Caritosus, Omitazio, Honoratus, Crescentio, Maximus, Probinus, Urbicus, Concordius, Neapolus, Refrigerius, Sebastianus, Calpurnius, Julianus, Epiphorus, Crispianus, Habetdeum, Cresceus, Rapula, Cyprianus, Abeulius, Exquiro, Orphitus, Venerius, Carpulianus, Constantius, Ursus, Valentinianus, Priscus, Severus, Probius, Faustus, Antonius, Quirillus, Albulus, Pulsanor, Homobonus, Caritto, Tespias, Marinus, Fabius, Crispinianus, Herculentius, Petrus, Nonnosus, Honestulus, Auriclianus, Impeditus, Furinus, Domitianus, Agapitus, Ilimulus, Capillatus, Nepotianus, Concordius, Bonifacius, Reparatus, Jugundinus, Auxentius, Cyprius, Bonushomo, Corporalis, Sallustius, Origanus, Venerosus, Abundius, Tinulus, Major. Hi omnes electi sunt viri libra occidua, qui testimonium perhibent videntes eum Marcellinum thurificasse.

to the Vestian temple and to Isis, brought in the bishop. When they had gone in, there were with him two deacons, Galus and Innocentius, and three priests, Urbanus, Castorius and Juvenalis. When they had seen him going in, but not, however, offering and burning incense, all these fled to their fellow priests, and found them in the Vatican of the Neronian palace, and told the thing which they had seen done. Then many Christians, going, went off for a proof of the truth, and saw him offering and burning incense, and made a friend of the princes. Those who went away from him, in order to present testimony of the truth, are these: Bonosus, Maximus, Carpilio, Cyprianus, Olympius, Priscus, Hercules, Androphemus, Benenatus, Epiphanius, Crispinus, Victor, Theodolus, Alexander, Romanus, Bajulus, Quiriacus, Theodolus, Caritosus, Omitazio, Honoratus, Crescentio, Maximus, Probinus, Urbicus, Concordius, Neapolus, Refrigerius, Sebastianus, Calpurnius, Julianus, Epiphorus, Crispianus, Habetdeum, Cresceus, Rapula, Cyprianus, Abeulius, Exquiro, Orphitus, Venerius, Carpulianus, Constantius, Ursus, Valentinianus, Priscus, Severus, Probius, Faustus, Antonius, Quirillus, Albulus, Pulsanor, Homobonus, Caritto, Tespias, Marinus, Fabius, Crispinianus, Herculentius, Petrus, Nonnosus, Honestulus, Auriclianus, Impeditus, Furinus, Domitianus, Agapitus, Ilimulus, Capillatus, Nepotianus, Concordius, Bonifacius, Reparatus, Jugundinus, Auxentius, Cyprius, Bonushomo, Corporalis, Sallustius, Origanus, Venerosus, Abundius, Tinulus, Major. All these are chosen men of the western balance, who bear testimony, having seen him, Marcellinus, burn incense.

III. De synodo in qua Marcellinus thurificasse se negat.—4. Factus itaque synodus, non tamen collecti sunt in integro sacerdotes, quia curriculus urgebatur persecutionis. Veniens autem episcopus Marcellinus, negabat se thurificasse. Nam dixit et hoc, sententiam proposuit, quia dimiserunt eum qui cum eo esse videbantur in eodem loco presbyteri Urbanus, Castorius et Juvenalis, et diacones Galus et Innocentius. Synodus autem universus hoc dixerunt cuncto judicio : « Tu enim eris judex ; ex te enim damnaberis, et ex te justificaberis : tamen nostrae

III. Of the synod in which Marcellinus denies that he burned incense.—4. So a synod was made, yet the priests were not gathered in full, because the course of the persecution was pressing. Then Bishop Marcellinus, coming, denied that he had burned incense. For he said this too, he put forward the claim, that those who were seen to be with him in the same place, the priests Urbanus, Castorius and Juvenalis, and the deacons Galus and Innocentius, had abandoned him. But the whole synod said this with united judgement: «For you will be the judge; for out of yourself you will be condemned, and out of yourself you will be justified: yet our

Editors' notes and page, col. 13

Footnotes

(II.) ‹anchor: Vestianum et ad Isidem› · note in col 13 II. — Vestianum et ad Isidem. Ita mss. Colb. non autem Vestæ et Isidis.

II. — "Vestianum et ad Isidem." So the Colbert manuscripts, not "Vestae et Isidis."

(lemma) ‹anchor: Penus› · note in col 13

Penus. Sic ms. Colb. Alii vero penes vel per. Mallemus specturi ceu spectaturi veritatis exemplum. Horum loco substituit corrector, propter veritatem ad templum.

"Penus." So the Colbert manuscript; others have "penes" or "per." We would prefer "specturi," i.e. "spectaturi veritatis exemplum" ("about to behold an example of truth"). In place of these the corrector substituted "propter veritatem ad templum" ("for the sake of truth, to the temple").

(III.) ‹anchor: Factus itaque synodus› · note in col 13 III. — Factus itaque synodus. Contra hanc synodum objectari solet, quomodo, persecutione sævissima flagrante, trecenti episcopi congregari potuerint, ac modicum oppidum, in quo fieri non poterat, ut tot externi laterent, delegerint? Quæri et illud potest, quis tot episcopos vocarit, cujus jussu Marcellinus Sinuessam adductus sit, quis huic synodo præfuerit? Sane episcopis, qui anno 502 Romæ in causa Symmachi papæ convenerunt, ignotam fuisse hujusmodi synodum, ex iis quæ tum dicta gestaque sunt, manifestum est.

III. — "So a synod was held." Against this synod it is commonly objected: how, while a most savage persecution was raging, could three hundred bishops have been gathered, and why would they have chosen a small town, in which so many outsiders could not possibly stay hidden? One may ask too who summoned so many bishops, by whose order Marcellinus was brought to Sinuessa, and who presided over this synod. Certainly, from what was then said and done, it is plain that such a synod was unknown to the bishops who met at Rome in 502 in the cause of Pope Symmachus.

(lemma) ‹anchor: Amisso ordine› · note in cols 13–14

Amisso ordine. Quid est quod presbyteri illi, prius quam subeant examen, amisso ordine, dicuntur honore destituti? Quodnam eorum crimen, ut hac pœna plectantur? Nihil aliud eis objectatur, nisi quod, Marcellino dimisso, a thure diis offerendo se continuerint. Sed horum gestorum artifex, qui clerico eum, a quo ordinatus est, accusare minime licere voluit, ut in aliis actis ex ejus officina prolatis videbimus, hac forte pœna eos dignos censuit, quia Marcellini creatoris sui accusandi occasionem præbuerant.

"Their order lost." Why is it that those presbyters, before they undergo examination, are said to be stripped of their rank, "their order lost"? What was their crime, that they should be struck with this penalty? Nothing else is charged against them except that, having left Marcellinus, they refrained from offering incense to the gods. But the fabricator of these Acts, who would have it that a cleric may by no means accuse the one by whom he was ordained (as we shall see in other acts produced from his workshop), perhaps judged them worthy of this penalty because they had given occasion for accusing Marcellinus, who had made them.

(IV.) ‹anchor: libra occidua› · note in col 14 IV.—Libra occidua. Additur hic occidua ad discrimen orientalis, quæ 74 solidis constabat. De libra 72 solidos continente fit mentio cod. Th., l. XII, tit. VI, leg. 15.

IV.—"The western pound." "Western" is added here to distinguish it from the eastern pound, which consisted of 74 solidi. The pound containing 72 solidi is mentioned in the Theodosian Code, book XII, title VI, law 15.

(lemma) ‹anchor: reparationem … resurgit annus› · note in col 14

Reparationem .... dedit. Hæc ita emendare nisus est corrector : In reparationem (forte legendum reparatione sublato in) resurgit annus. Hoc quoque factum est novi, ut introiret unus de testibus, qui cum (continues)

"Reparationem .... dedit." The corrector tried to emend this thus: "Into renewal (perhaps read 'reparatione', with 'in' removed) the year rises again. This too, a new thing, was done, that one of the witnesses should come in, who when (continues)

(printed under page 10)

Page

running head: 13 SYNODI SINUESSANÆ (cut off at the image edge; the flat-topped 3 reads like 5 in the scan)
marginal letters: A ‹ad templum Vestianum et ad Isidem›; B ‹Quiriacus, Theodolus, Caritosus›; C ‹sunt viri libra occidua›; D ‹II. — Vestianum et ad Isidem› (in the Annotationes)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: text is the Gesta of the Synod of Sinuessa (Marcellinus), not Lactantius; "ANNOTATIONES." heading printed across the page above the foot notes, not set; editors' Annotationes at the page foot (II. Vestianum..., Penus..., III. Factus itaque synodus..., Amisso ordine...) left for the later pass; UNSURE readings: Androphemus, Habetdeum, Ilimulus (Ili-mulus), Jugundinus, qui (type looks like qul), Galus (both places; could be Gaius with a blurred i); "penus veritatis exemplum" and "libra occidua" are obscure, rendered literally; column ends at nostrae, mid-sentence

PL 6:14

praesentiae. Illud vero dum veneris ad judicium tuum, ex te damnaberis, et ex te justificaberis; tu enim judex, tu reus. Presbyteri autem vel diacones, quoniam pontificem qui eos creavit in ordine presbyterii vel diaconatus honore, et dimiserunt aream, et evacuaverunt horreum, ad probandum, amisso ordine, intrent examen, quoniam evacuaverunt horreum. Debuit enim pontifex mori cum quinque (supple, potius) quam vivat suo judicio condemnatus.» Introivit autem universus synodus in crypta Cleopatriense in civitate Sessuana (ms. Sensuana), et quia non multitudo referebatur in crypta, synodi quinquageni introibant.

presence. But as for that, when you come to your own judgement, by yourself you will be condemned, and by yourself you will be justified; for you are judge, you are defendant. But the presbyters or deacons, since the pontiff who created them in the order of the presbyterate or in the honour of the diaconate, and they abandoned the threshing-floor and emptied the granary, for proof, their order having been lost, let them enter examination, since they emptied the granary. For the pontiff ought to have died with the five (supply, rather) than live condemned by his own judgement.» But the whole synod entered into the Cleopatrian crypt in the city of Sessuana (ms. Sensuana), and since the multitude could not be contained in the crypt, those of the synod went in fifty at a time.

IV. Damnantur Urbanus, Castorius ac socii. — 5. Prima autem die synodi introierunt hi damnantes Urbanum, Castorium et Juvenalem presbyteros, et diaconos Gaium et Innocentium. Hi sunt qui introierunt episcopi, audientes, non tamen judicantes pontificem, Petrus, Castorius, Habetdeum, Castinus, Victor, Felicianus, Parterius, Majorinus, Castalius, Laurentius, Paulus, Bonosus, Felix, Firminus, Spesindeo, Tranquillinus, Anastasius, Castinus, Victor, Beneservandus, Joannes, Epiphanius, Castus, Yacinthus, Herculanus, Sabinus, Orfitus, Gaudiosus, Reparatus, Amplexus, Cyprus, Fortunatus, Quadratianus, Sebastianus, Cyprianus, Pascasius, Innocens, Valerius, Servulus, Cerasianus, Constantius, Quintilianus, Montanus, Catellus, Polycarpus, Athanasius, Hermias, Nepotianus, Petrus, Aristonicius. Hi introeuntes in crypta propter metum augustorum, uno ore quasi triceni, uno die ejus consilio judicantes, et damnaverunt Urbanum, Castorium et Juvenalem presbyteros, et diaconos Gaium et Innocentium, qui evacuaverunt horreum, et dimiserunt aream apertam, ut introiret immundus, et comederet triticum. Ipsos etiam damnaverunt.

IV. Urbanus, Castorius and their associates are condemned. — 5. On the first day of the synod these entered, condemning Urbanus, Castorius and Juvenal, presbyters, and the deacons Gaius and Innocent. These are the bishops who entered, hearing but not judging the pontiff: Peter, Castorius, Habetdeum, Castinus, Victor, Felicianus, Parterius, Majorinus, Castalius, Laurentius, Paul, Bonosus, Felix, Firminus, Spesindeo, Tranquillinus, Anastasius, Castinus, Victor, Beneservandus, John, Epiphanius, Castus, Yacinthus, Herculanus, Sabinus, Orfitus, Gaudiosus, Reparatus, Amplexus, Cyprus, Fortunatus, Quadratianus, Sebastian, Cyprian, Pascasius, Innocens, Valerius, Servulus, Cerasianus, Constantius, Quintilianus, Montanus, Catellus, Polycarp, Athanasius, Hermias, Nepotianus, Peter, Aristonicius. These, entering into the crypt on account of fear of the Augusti, with one voice, about thirty at a time, on one day judging by his counsel, both condemned Urbanus, Castorius and Juvenal, presbyters, and the deacons Gaius and Innocent, who emptied the granary and left the threshing-floor open, so that the unclean one might enter and eat the wheat. These too they condemned.

6. Et judicabant, non tamen judicabant pontificem: quia hoc ex uno ore erant conroborati, ut intra hos LXXII testimonia ipse judox, ipse reus, ipse semetipsum ea (f. in) praesentia eorum innocentem se servaret, et infidelem se damnaret; quoniam in LXXII libra occidua reparationem resurgit annus. Hanc itaque gesta miraculum, ut introiret de testimonia

6. And they judged, yet they did not judge the pontiff: because they were confirmed in this with one voice, that within these seventy-two testimonies he himself as judge, he himself as defendant, he himself should keep himself innocent in that (perhaps: in) presence of theirs, and condemn himself as unfaithful; since in the western pound of seventy-two the year rises again to restoration. This, therefore, the acts [record as] a miracle, that there should enter from the testimonies

Editors' notes and page, col. 14

Page

running head: SINUESSANAE GESTA. 14
marginal letters: A ‹praesentiae. Illud vero›; B ‹Urbanum, Castorium et Juvenalem›; C ‹uno ore quasi triceni›; D ‹quam subeant examen› (in the Annotationes at the page foot)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: a hand-drawn tick after "reparationem" not set; full-width heading ANNOTATIONES stands below the text block, not set; the Annotationes at the page foot (Quam subeant examen ..., IV.—Libra occidua ..., Reparationem .... dedit ...) are left for the later pass; column ends mid-word at "testi-"; "universus synodus", "in crypta Cleopatriense", "conroborati" set as printed

PL 6:15

talis unius uxoris, filios habens, sicut et hic qui habet uxorem et filios, adulteravit super uxorem, et dedit uxori repudium. Et introierunt alii decem et alii tres dicentes: « Nos te vidimus mittentem et thurificantem Herculi, Jovi et Patusino. » Dicit autem Marcellinus: « Quo die? » Respondit unus eorum, et dixit: « Quo die excidisti (exuisti) purpuram, et induisti coccum, et gaudebat super te Diocletianus, eo quod satis paulo ante negabas, et ante ejus tribunal thurificabas. » Athanasius episcopus dixit: « Ita sunt quae testantur isti? » Et respondit Petrus episcopus, et dixit: « Loquere et pontifex (f. tu pontifex), et judica causam tuam. » Et subscripserunt quinquaginta episcopi qui supradicti sunt in quatuordecim viros, qui ex uno ore loquebantur de duo et septuaginta, et firmabant judicium.

of such a man of one wife, having sons, just as this man too, who has a wife and sons, committed adultery against his wife and gave his wife a bill of divorce. And another ten and another three came in, saying: « We saw you sending and offering incense to Hercules, Jupiter and Patusinus. » But Marcellinus says: « On what day? » One of them answered and said: « On the day when you took off (put off) the purple and put on the scarlet, and Diocletian rejoiced over you, because a little before you had been denying firmly enough, and before his tribunal you were offering incense. » Athanasius the bishop said: « Are the things these men testify so? » And Peter the bishop answered and said: « Speak, and pontiff (perhaps: you, pontiff), and judge your own cause. » And the fifty bishops who were mentioned above subscribed against the fourteen men, who with one mouth spoke from among the seventy-two, and they confirmed the judgement.

V. Presbyteri Rom. damnationem Castorii et sociorum ratam habent. Marcellini causam discutiunt alii qninquaginta episcopi. —7. Alia autem die venerunt tres et viginti presbyteri urbis Romae, et in eorum judicio Urbani, Castorii et Juvenalis presbyterorum, et Gaii et Innocentii diaconorum damnationem integram perspexerunt, ipsi de suo ordine justitiam tenuerunt dicentes: « Amisso ordine negent se esse horumque socii Ecclesiae. »

V. The presbyters of Rome hold the condemnation of Castorius and his associates to be valid. Another fifty bishops examine the cause of Marcellinus. —7. On another day there came twenty-three presbyters of the city of Rome, and in their judgement they examined in full the condemnation of the presbyters Urbanus, Castorius and Juvenalis, and of the deacons Gaius and Innocent; they themselves upheld justice concerning their own order, saying: « Their order being lost, let both these and their associates deny that they are of the Church. »

8. Venientes autem post secundum diem post damnationem presbyterorum Urbani, Castorii et Juvenalis, Gaii et Innocentii diaconorum, venerunt alii quinquaginta episcopi, et introierunt in crypta, ut tertia pars synodi compleretur. Et dum ingressi fuissent in crypta propter tempestatem temporis, introivit et Marcellinus urbis episcopus, cum adhuc itaque nomen tenens episcopatus, nondum enim fuerat damnatus, nisi numerus secundum ordinem synodi librae (Colb. ms. libra) probaret exemplum. Introivit

8. Then, coming on the second day after the condemnation of the presbyters Urbanus, Castorius and Juvenalis, and of the deacons Gaius and Innocent, another fifty bishops came and went into the crypt, so that the third part of the synod might be completed. And when they had gone into the crypt because of the stormy weather, Marcellinus too, bishop of the city, came in, while still thus holding the name of the episcopate, for he had not yet been condemned, unless the number according to the order of the synod should prove the example of the balance (Colb. MS. libra). There came in

Editors' notes and page, col. 15

Footnotes

(lemma) ‹anchor: Reparationem … dedit› · note in cols 15–16

(continued) et uxorem haberet et filios ex ea, ipse tamen illi spretæ adulteram superinduxit, et dedit. Hujusmodi lectionem a veterum codicum littera sic abhorrentem quis accipiat? quis ferat? Neque a littera solum, sed et ab auctoris mente eam procul abesse prope indubitatum est. Non enim is fuit horum gestorum artifex, qui in gravissima causa, ad quam duos et septuaginta testes desideret, eum primum proferret quem cum sæculi, tum Ecclesiæ, leges a testimonio dicendo arcent. Anianus, codicis Theod. interpres, in legem 12, tit. I, l. IX, edicit : Periculosa est, et admitti non debet rei adversus quemcumque professio; et in legem 19 : Jure et legibus constitutum est, ut spontanea professione reus reum non faciat, neque illi de altero credatur, qui se criminosum esse confessus est. Prædicat et Augustinus in psal. XXXVI, conc. II, n. 22 : Reus reum non facit. Africani quoque canones Cod. eccl. Afr., c. 129, præcipiunt : Ad accusationem non admittantur omnes quos ad accusanda publica crimina leges publicæ non admittunt; et cap. 8, sanciunt : Ut is qui aliquibus sceleribus irretitus est, vocem adversus majorem natu non habeat accusandi; et c. 19, volunt : Ut si fuerit accusatoris persona culpabilis, ad arguendum non admittatur. Ne quis tamen dicat hæc de accusatoribus, non de testibus constitui, memorandum est quod ejusdem codicis capite 131, decernitur : Testes autem ad testimonium non admittendos, qui nec ad accusationem admitti præcepti sunt. Nos vero ad commendationem potius testimonii dictum putamus, quod primus ille testis et unius uxoris fuerit, et filios habuerit : maxime cum ab eodem auctore in constituto Silvestri, n. 6, audituri simus : Non condemnabitur subdiaconus, acolytus, exorcista, lector, nisi in septem testimonia filios et uxores habentes, et omnino Christum prædicantes. Igitur priora textus nostri verba resarcire rectius ad mentem auctoris sic liceret : Hæc itaque gesta miraculo (seu non sine miraculo), ut introiret de testimoniis (seu de testibus) talis unius uxoris, adeoque aptus ad eum pudore afficiendum, qui se spiritali adulterio commaculasse dicitur.

(lemma) ‹anchor: Herculi etc.› · note in col 16

Herculi etc. Cum superioribus, ubi Marcellinus in Vestæ et Isidis templum inductus prædicatur, hoc pugnare Baronius observat; cum in templis deorum iis tantum diis, quibus dicata essent, sacrificare mos esset. Quocirca Marcellinus Isidi et Vestæ, non Herculi, Jovi et Patusino sacrum fecisse dicendus erat.

"To Hercules, etc." Baronius observes that this conflicts with the earlier passage, where Marcellinus is said to have been led into the temple of Vesta and Isis; for the custom was to sacrifice in the temples of the gods only to the gods to whom they had been dedicated. Marcellinus, therefore, should have been said to have sacrificed to Isis and Vesta, not to Hercules, Jupiter and Patusinus.

(VI.) ‹anchor: dum tultæ fuerunt› · note in col 16 VI.— Tultæ. Emendator substituit cultæ. Retinendum tultæ a verbo tollo, tuli, tultum : nec desunt apud sequioris ævi scriptores hujusce usus exempla. Sed neque placet quod idem corrector paulo ante maluit sæpefatum, loco tepefactum, cum hoc verbum tegulis, quæ iterum coquuntur, magis congruat.

VI.— "Tultae." The emender substituted "cultae." "Tultae" should be kept, from the verb tollo, tuli, tultum; nor are examples of this usage lacking among writers of a later age. Nor do we like it that the same corrector shortly before preferred "saepefatum" in place of "tepefactum," since this word suits better the tiles that are baked again.

(printed under page 11)

Page

running head: DE MARCELLINO (column number 15)
marginal letters: A ‹monia talis unius uxoris›; B ‹loquebantur de duo et septuaginta›; C ‹ut tertia pars synodi compleretur›; D ‹ginta testes desideret› (in the Annotationes at the page foot)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column begins with the fragment "monia" broken from the previous column (perhaps testimonia or matrimonia; English rendered as "-monia"); "de duo et septuaginta" set as printed; full-width heading "ANNOTATIONES" across both columns, cut off at the right edge, not set; the Annotationes at the page foot are left for the later pass; right-hand column cut off and not set

PL 6:16

autem Castinus, Bonus, Quiriacus, Dominicus, Alexander, Venerosus, Felix, Joannes, Crispus, Deusdedit, Honestatus, Majorianus, Vita, Carpurianus, Anastasius, Petrus, Crescentio, Domninus, Ursus, Agatho, Honestatus, Marcus, Urbanus, Valentinus, Sallustius, Crescens, Firminus, Spectator, Sebastianus, Ultius, Benenatus, Tristator, Servus, Marcus, Montanus, Asterius, Anthimus, Placentianus, Ambrosius, Quirillus, Andreas, Philippus, Magnus, Exsuperantius, Adrianus, Petrus, Gorgonius, Simplex, Victor, Venerosus. Introibant autem in crypta.

moreover Castinus, Bonus, Quiriacus, Dominicus, Alexander, Venerosus, Felix, John, Crispus, Deusdedit, Honestatus, Majorianus, Vita, Carpurianus, Anastasius, Peter, Crescentio, Domninus, Ursus, Agatho, Honestatus, Mark, Urban, Valentine, Sallustius, Crescens, Firminus, Spectator, Sebastian, Ultius, Benenatus, Tristator, Servus, Mark, Montanus, Asterius, Anthimus, Placentianus, Ambrose, Quirillus, Andrew, Philip, Magnus, Exsuperantius, Adrian, Peter, Gorgonius, Simplex, Victor, Venerosus. And they were entering into the crypt.

VI. Suo eum judicio permittunt, et quinque clericorum damnationem approbant. — 9. Respondit Anastasius et Anthimus episcopi, et dixerunt: « Tuo ore judica causam, non nostro judicio; solve conditionem. » Respondens autem Sebastianus episcopus dixit: « Noli in nostro judicio, sed collige in sinu tuo causam tuam, et introduc testes, ut testificentur veritatem: quoniam ex te justificaberis, et ex ore tuo condemnaberis; quoniam recte anticipantes nostri et coepiscopi damnaverunt, sicut et nostro ore petimus uno consorti judicio damnari, Urbanum, Castorium et Juvenalem presbyteros, Gaium et Innocentium diaconos: quia heri ex spelunca fregerunt (fugerunt), et tepefactum hi dimiserunt, amisso ordine, intrent examen: quoniam omnes tegulae, dicit Petrus episcopus, dum tultae fuerunt de fornace, jam coctae iterum coquuntur sole, et pluviae in eodem probantur, ut sint super habitaculis hominum.

VI. They leave him to his own judgement, and approve the condemnation of five clerics. — 9. Anastasius and Anthimus, bishops, answered and said: « Judge the case with your own mouth, not by our judgement; resolve the condition. » And Sebastian the bishop, answering, said: « Do not [put it] in our judgement, but gather your case into your own bosom, and bring in witnesses, that they may testify to the truth: for by yourself you will be justified, and by your own mouth you will be condemned; since our [brethren] and fellow bishops, anticipating, rightly condemned [them], just as we also with our own mouth ask that by one shared judgement there be condemned Urban, Castorius and Juvenal, priests, Gaius and Innocent, deacons: because yesterday they broke out (fled) from the cave, and these men abandoned what had been warmed; having lost their order, let them enter upon examination: for all tiles, says Peter the bishop, when they have been taken from the furnace, already baked, are baked again by the sun, and are tested in the same by the rains, so that they may be over the dwellings of men.

VII. Marcellinum thurificasse probatur. Superinducuntur quatuor et quadraginta novi Testes. Ipse se damnat Marcellinus. — 10. Mora autem non faciente (f. patiente), ut in damnationem eorum interdictorum subscriberent hi quinquaginta episcopi,

VII. It is proved that Marcellinus offered incense. Forty-four new witnesses are brought in besides. Marcellinus condemns himself. — 10. And delay not causing [it] (perhaps: not permitting [it]), so that these fifty bishops should subscribe to the condemnation of those interdicted men,

Editors' notes and page, col. 16

Page

running head: …E MARCELLINO (left part cut off at image edge) 16
marginal letters: A autem Castinus, Bonus; B judica causam, non nostro; C hominum.; D (beside the foot annotations, not the text block) tes, et omnino Christum
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column begins mid-sentence with "autem" and ends mid-sentence after "episcopi,"; second quotation (« Noli…) is not closed within this column, as printed; full-width heading "ANNOTATIONES." above the page-foot notes, cut off at left edge, not set; the Annotationes at the page foot (Tultae, Herculi etc., etc.) left for the later pass; partial left column visible in images belongs to col. 15 and is not set

PL 6:17

ut, amisso ordine, introirent in synodum, ecce introierunt et quatuordecim testes, qui dicebant se Marcellinum vidisse thurificantem. Respondit unus episcopus nomine Sallustius: « Dicite coram veritatem. » Respondit Petrus, et dixit ad Marcellinum episcopum: « Jam audi, pontifex, et judica causam tuam: quoniam ex ore tuo justificaberis, et ex ore tuo condemnaberis: quoniam omnia membra sana esse non possunt, si caput maestavit. » Respondit Marcellinus, et dixit voce clara: « Non diis sacrificavi, sed tantum grana levatis manibus pruna combussi. » Levaverunt se omnes quinquaginta praesules episcopi, dicentes ad quatuordecim testimonia: « Quid vidistis hunc facientem? quod ex ore suo testatur quasi uno ore dicentes. » Et subscripserunt omnes quinquaginta in quinque testimonia quatuordecim virorum: ita ut octo et viginti complerentur cum anticipatis. Unus autem de episcopis, nomine Quirinus, dixit: « Infudisti cor tuum, pontifex, malitia, quod decem et octo annis sic caveras castitate; praesul vulnerasti universa membra tua: propterea ego non recedam de omni introitu synodi: omne purpureum cor tuum. »

that, the order having been set aside, they should enter into the synod, behold, there entered also fourteen witnesses, who said that they had seen Marcellinus offering incense. One bishop, Sallustius by name, answered: « Speak the truth openly. » Peter answered, and said to Bishop Marcellinus: « Now hear, pontiff, and judge your own case: for out of your own mouth you will be justified, and out of your own mouth you will be condemned; for all the members cannot be sound if the head has grieved. » Marcellinus answered, and said with a clear voice: « I did not sacrifice to the gods, but only, with raised hands, burned grains on a live coal. » All the fifty prelates, the bishops, rose up, saying to the fourteen testimonies: « What did you see this man doing? that which he testifies out of his own mouth, as though saying it with one mouth. » And all the fifty subscribed to the five testimonies of the fourteen men, so that twenty-eight were made up together with those previously mentioned. But one of the bishops, Quirinus by name, said: « You have steeped your heart, pontiff, in malice, because for eighteen years you had thus kept guard with chastity; as prelate you have wounded all your members: therefore I will not withdraw from any entry of the synod: your whole heart is purple. »

11. Alia autem die constituerunt hi ducenti episcopi, ut quasi et ipsi introirent quinquageni in synodum. Et facta collocutione in uno cum hos anticipantes centum sederunt in eadem civitate omnes ex uno examen trecenti, et alligaverunt et damnaverunt hos, Urbanum, Castorium et Juvenalem presbyteros, Gaium et Innocentium diaconos. Respondit Sebastianus episcopus: « Hoc tribunal nostro sermone, nostro chirographo, nostro eloquio, nostro auxilio, nostra constantia et veritate fixa et praeclara dispositione auditionis exhibemus legamen. Non enim nostro ore justificaberis, aut nostro ore condemnaberis, quoniam sue tunicam tuam in te, quam paulo non induebas sutam, modo excisam sue ex corde tuo

11. On another day these two hundred bishops resolved that they too, as it were, should enter into the synod fifty at a time. And a conference having been held together, with those who had come before them, one hundred sat in the same city, all three hundred from one examination, and they bound and condemned these: Urbanus, Castorius and Juvenal, priests, Gaius and Innocent, deacons. Bishop Sebastian answered: « This tribunal, by our speech, by our handwriting, by our utterance, by our help, by our constancy and with truth fixed and a clear disposition of hearing, we present as a bond. For you will not be justified out of our mouth, or condemned out of our mouth, since sew up your tunic upon you, which a little [before] you were not wearing sewn, now cut away, sew it up from your heart

Editors' notes and page, col. 17

Footnotes

(VII.) ‹anchor: Non sacrificavi… combussi› · note in col 17 VII. — Non sacrificavi... combussi. Pontificem dedecet fatua hæc et insulsa negandi ratio, quasi ei ignorare fas fuisset, eum censeri diis sacrificasse, qui coram idolis thuris grana prunis combussisset.

VII. — "I did not sacrifice... I burned." This foolish and witless manner of denial is unworthy of a pontiff, as though he could be allowed not to know that one who had burned grains of incense on the coals before idols was reckoned to have sacrificed to the gods.

(lemma) ‹anchor: Quinquaginta in quinque› · note in col 17

Quinquaginta in quinque. Editi in tribus columnis, quinquaginta quinque, vel quinquaginta et quinque. Rectius ms. Colb. quinquaginta, scil. episcopi, in quinque testimonia, quia scilicet in actione prima primo unus solus, tum decem, postea tres semel, in hac autem altera alii quatuordecim testimonium bis interrogati dixerunt : ex quo quinque fiunt testimonia.

"Fifty in five." The printed editions, in three columns, have "fifty-five" or "fifty and five." The Colbert manuscript more rightly has "fifty," that is, bishops, "in five testimonies": because in the first session first one man alone, then ten, then three together, and in this second session fourteen others, questioned twice, gave testimony; which makes five testimonies.

(lemma) ‹anchor: Cum anticipatis› · note in col 17

Cum anticipatis. Unus ms. anticipantes, alter anticipantibus. Horum corrector participantibus. Ex ms. Colb. in quo anticipantis, restituimus anticipatis, hoc est, prius memoratis.

"Cum anticipatis." One manuscript has "anticipantes," another "anticipantibus." Their corrector has "participantibus." From the Colbert manuscript, which has "anticipantis," we have restored "anticipatis," that is, "those mentioned before."

(lemma) ‹anchor: Cum hos anticipantes› · note in col 17

Cum hos anticipantes. Unus e mss. cum his anticipantibus. Corrector, cum his præscriptis; et mox, omnesque uno examine.

"Cum hos anticipantes." One of the manuscripts has "cum his anticipantibus." The corrector has "cum his praescriptis" ("with those named above"); and shortly after, "omnesque uno examine" ("and all in one examination").

(lemma) ‹anchor: quam paulo› · note in col 17

Quam paulo. Supple, ante. Subjicit auctor noster, non induebas sutam : quod de tempore dictum, quo Marcellinus scissuram tunicæ nesciebat. Ab ejus autem mente aberrat corrector hunc locum sic exhibens : Quapropter consue tunicam tuam, et quam paulo ante induebas sutam, conscissam consue.

"Quam paulo." Supply "ante" ("before"). Our author adds, "you were not wearing it sewn": said of the time when Marcellinus did not know of the tear in his tunic. But the corrector strays from his meaning in presenting the passage thus: "Wherefore sew up your tunic, and the one you were wearing sewn a little before, now torn, sew up."

(lemma) ‹anchor: Ex-pontifex Romæ› · note in cols 17–18

Ex-pontifex Romæ. Ita ms. Colb. cum altero in vulgatis notato. Ex quo manifesta est in his actis pugna, utpote in quibus episcopi non suo ore Marcellinum, sed ipsiusmet judicio damnandum recantant, et tamen hic ex-pontifex, antequam se ipse damnaverit, vocatur. Quamquam unus codex simpliciter pontifex præ se ferre notatur.

"Ex-pontiff of Rome." So the Colbert manuscript, together with another noted in the printed editions. From this a contradiction in these Acts is plain: in them the bishops keep repeating that Marcellinus is to be condemned not by their mouth but by his own judgement, and yet here, before he has condemned himself, he is called "ex-pontiff." One codex, however, is noted as showing simply "pontiff."

(lemma) ‹anchor: Viginti octo… testes› · note in col 18

Viginti octo... testes. Corrector, et viginti octo testium supradictorum. Mallemus et viginti octo testibus supradictis, scil. adstantibus. Unde tandem sublatum est incommodum, quo episcopi primo, ne simul in unum convenirent, prohibebantur : adeo ut sic trecenti episcopi, presbyteri triginta et testes quatuordecim uno in loco simul essent?

"Twenty-eight... witnesses." The corrector has "and of the twenty-eight witnesses mentioned above." We would prefer "and the twenty-eight witnesses mentioned above," that is, being present. How, then, was the difficulty removed by which the bishops were at first prevented from meeting together in one place, so that three hundred bishops, thirty presbyters and fourteen witnesses could thus be together in one place?

(lemma) ‹anchor: Unciæ in libra… sensus› · note in col 18

Unciæ in libra... sensus. Minus displicet illud correctoris, unciis libræ probabitur census.

"Ounces in the pound... sense." The corrector's reading is less displeasing: "the reckoning will be proved by the ounces of the pound."

(lemma) ‹anchor: et lacera… quoniam› · note in col 18

Et lacera... quoniam. Longius et hic ab archetypis recedit corrector in hunc modum : Et disjectam a te maceriem tuam ipse scrutare. Non enim nostro, sed tuo ipsius judicio condemnaberis, nostro autem testimonio excusaberis. Nihil time : quoniam. Certe in totis gestis nihil est, quo Marcellinum excusatum velint.

"Et lacera... quoniam." Here too the corrector departs further from the archetypes, in this manner: "And examine yourself your wall cast down by you. For you will be condemned not by our judgement but by your own, while by our testimony you will be excused. Fear nothing: since." Certainly there is nothing in the whole of the Acts by which they would wish Marcellinus excused.

(lemma) ‹anchor: in conspectu… in terra› · note in col 18

In conspectu... in terra. Colb. ms. cum altero, ex ore synodi cecidit in terra. Alius, exhorres synodum, cecidisti in terram.

"In the sight... on the ground." The Colbert manuscript, with another, has "at the word of the synod he fell to the ground." Another has "you shudder at the synod, you fell to the ground."

(printed under page 12)

Page

running head: 17 SYNODI SINUESSANÆ G (cut off at the right edge of the image)
marginal letters: A ‹ut, amisso ordine, introirent in synodum, ecce in-›; B ‹omnes quinquaginta in quinque testimonia quatuor-›; C ‹stianus episcopus : « Hoc tribunal nostro sermone,›; D ‹Rectius ms. Colb. quinquaginta› (in the page-foot annotations)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: full-width heading ANNOTATIONES, cut off at the image edge, not set; the editors' page-foot annotations below it (VII. — Non sacrificavi... combussi; Quinquaginta in quinque; Cum anticipatis; Cum hos anticipantes; Quam paulo; Ex-pontifex Romae, last line partly illegible) not set, left for the later pass. Latin of the acts is barbarous: "maestavit", "examen" (editors' corrector reads uno examine), "sue" (corrector consue) set as printed; English of "Quid vidistis ... dicentes" and "omne purpureum cor tuum" UNSURE. "Digitized by" watermark at page foot ignored.

PL 6:18

et ex manibus tuis, involvere in peccato tuo, Marcelline, expontifex Romae. » Respondit Urbanus episcopus ad Sebastianum episcopum et dixit: « Introducantur testes viri viriliter numero quatuor et quadraginta ut libra occidua compleatur a multis, quod a multis fabricatum est. » Et introierunt testes Tranquillinus, Priscus, Bonus, Servulus, Cyprianus, Petrus, Quadratianus, Aresto, Tespius, Quadrus, Epiphorus, Maximus, Gordianus, Gaudiosus, Saturninus, Urbanus, Reparatus, Priscus, Venerosus, Romanus, Exsuperius, Crispianus, Barbarus, Leo, Forianus, Bacauda, Ambrosius, Terula, Johannes, Jubentius, Proculus, Octavianus, Romanus, Valerius, Iacinthus, Mellicianus, Petrus, Claudius, Exper, Probus, Nicorus, Probatianus, Ursinus, Urbatianus.

and from your hands, be entangled in your own sin, Marcellinus, ex-pontiff of Rome. » Urbanus the bishop answered Sebastian the bishop and said: « Let witnesses be brought in, men of manly bearing, forty-four in number, so that the declining pound may be made up by many, since it was fashioned by many. » And there came in as witnesses Tranquillinus, Priscus, Bonus, Servulus, Cyprianus, Petrus, Quadratianus, Aresto, Tespius, Quadrus, Epiphorus, Maximus, Gordianus, Gaudiosus, Saturninus, Urbanus, Reparatus, Priscus, Venerosus, Romanus, Exsuperius, Crispianus, Barbarus, Leo, Forianus, Bacauda, Ambrosius, Terula, Johannes, Jubentius, Proculus, Octavianus, Romanus, Valerius, Iacinthus, Mellicianus, Petrus, Claudius, Exper, Probus, Nicorus, Probatianus, Ursinus, Urbatianus.

12. Singulis autem adstantibus in gremio trecentorum episcoporum et triginta presbyterorum Romanorum, et viginti octo supradicti testes, ut libra compleretur: quoniam duodecim unciae in libra probabitur sensus, et in septuaginta duobus comparatus damnabitur praesul. Respondit Quiriacus episcopus, et dixit ad Marcellinum: « Non cognoscis universum velamen cordis tui (Vid. acta de purgatione, Xyst. III, n. 4): judica enim causam tuam, et lacera, macera macerationem tuam. Non ex nobis judicaberis: tuo enim pontificio condemnaberis, et nostro testimonio explicaveris metas: quoniam nos in condemnationem nihil opponimus causale, nihil defendimus: sed damnamus hos, qui evacuaverunt templum, et dimiserunt fabricam manu de super constructam, ut introirent lupi, et facerent speluncas, et comederent agnos immaculatos, et eos qui ex vetere ad novum venerant, inveterarent. Te enim non condemnamus, quoniam ex ore [tuo justificaberis, et ex ore tuo condemnaberis. » Marcellinus autem in conspectu synodi] cecidit in terra. Ibi autem jacens, et ibi eo mora faciente, damnaverunt. Synodus autem et presbyteri triginta

12. Now as each of them stood in the bosom of the three hundred bishops and thirty Roman presbyters, and the twenty-eight above-mentioned witnesses, so that the pound might be made full: since by twelve ounces in the pound the sense will be proved, and by seventy-two the prelate, when weighed against them, will be condemned. Quiriacus the bishop answered and said to Marcellinus: « You do not know the whole veil of your heart (See the acts of the purgation, Xystus III, n. 4): judge then your own cause, and tear, waste your wasting. You will not be judged by us: for by your own pontificate you will be condemned, and by our testimony you will unfold the bounds: since we set up nothing causal against the condemnation, we defend nothing: but we condemn those who emptied the temple and abandoned the structure built by hand from above, so that wolves might enter, and make caves, and devour spotless lambs, and make old again those who had come from the old to the new. For we do not condemn you, since out of your own mouth [you will be justified, and out of your own mouth you will be condemned. » But Marcellinus in the sight of the synod] fell to the ground. And as he lay there, and while he lingered there, they condemned [him]. But the synod and the thirty presbyters

Editors' notes and page, col. 18

Page

running head: SINUESSANÆ GESTA. (cut off at left edge; visible as "…INUESSANÆ GESTA.")
marginal letters: A ‹et ex manibus tuis›; B ‹12. Singulis autem adstantibus›; C ‹lupi, et facerent speluncas›; D ‹Viginti octo... testes. Corrector› (in the Annotationes at page foot)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column contains the Gesta of the Synod of Sinuessa, not Lactantius; full-width heading "ANNOTATIONES." stands below the text block, cut off at left, not set; the Annotationes at page foot (editors' notes, from "vulgatis notato. Ex quo manifesta") not set, for later pass; Quadratianus and Mellicianus printed with damaged letters (a, s) but legible; "(Vid. acta de purgatione, Xyst. III, n. 4)" is Migne's in-text reference, set as printed

PL 6:19

voce clara chirographum firmaverunt super Urbanum, Castorium et Juvenalem presbyteros hi: Humanus, Capuanus, Castorius, Innocentius, Audax, Homobonus, Petrus, Quiriacus, Herculanus, Serenus, Johannes, Nepotianus, Cyprianus, Corporanus, Eusebius, Castinus, Victor, Matthaeus, Spesindeo, Virus, Vincomalus, Collecticius, Valentinus, Priscillianus, Julianus, Lucianus, Castorius; et diacones isti: Hermes, Xystus, Petrus. Subscripserunt autem in damnationem horum quinque Urbani, Castorii et Juvenalis presbyterorum, et Gaii et Innocentii diaconorum.

with a clear voice these confirmed the written bond against the priests Urbanus, Castorius and Juvenal: Humanus, Capuanus, Castorius, Innocentius, Audax, Homobonus, Peter, Quiriacus, Herculanus, Serenus, John, Nepotianus, Cyprian, Corporanus, Eusebius, Castinus, Victor, Matthew, Spesindeo, Virus, Vincomalus, Collecticius, Valentinus, Priscillian, Julian, Lucian, Castorius; and these deacons: Hermes, Xystus, Peter. And they subscribed to the condemnation of these five, the priests Urbanus, Castorius and Juvenal, and the deacons Gaius and Innocentius.

13. In sinu autem trecentorum episcoporum caput cinere convolutus Marcellinus episcopus Urbis voce clara clamans dicebat: Peccavi coram vobis, et non possum in ordine esse sacerdotum: quoniam avarus me corrupit (corrupi) auro. Subscripserunt autem in ejus damnationem, et damnaverunt eum extra civitatem. Sacerdos nomine Helciadis episcopus subscripsit primus in ejus damnationem, non tantum

13. And in the midst of the three hundred bishops Marcellinus, bishop of the City, his head covered with ash, crying out with a clear voice, said: I have sinned before you, and I cannot be in the order of priests: because the covetous one corrupted me (I was corrupted) with gold. And they subscribed to his condemnation, and condemned him outside the city. A priest named Helciades, a bishop, subscribed first to his condemnation, not only

tempore quod exigebat ordo, sed etiam futuri temporis. Quod etiam et ipse voce clara dicebat: « Juste ore suo condemnatus est, et ore suo anathema suscepit maranata: quoniam ore suo condemnatus est. Nemo enim umquam judicavit pontificem, nec praesul sacerdotem suum: quoniam prima sedes non judicabitur a quoquam. » Hoc autem audito, Diocletianus, dum esset in bello Persarum, audivit quod trecenti episcopi et triginta presbyteri et tres diacones in condemnationem convenirent. Dum subscripsissent omnes, ipse omnium primus manu sua propria Marcellinus conclusit in suum anathema, anathemati subscribens. Iratus autem Diocletianus in eamdem civitatem misit, et multos episcopos ad martyrii coronam traxit. Factum est autem nihil aliud, dum primo damnati fuissent tres presbyteri et duo diacones damnati. Damnatus autem et Marcellinus episcopus suo judicio X Kalendas Septembris Diocletiano VIII et Maximiano VII.

for the time which the order required, but also for time to come. Which he himself also said with a clear voice: “Justly has he been condemned by his own mouth, and by his own mouth has he received the anathema maranatha: since by his own mouth he has been condemned. For no one has ever judged the pontiff, nor a prelate his own priest: since the first see shall be judged by no one.” And when this was heard, Diocletian, while he was in the war of the Persians, heard that three hundred bishops and thirty priests and three deacons had come together for the condemnation. When all had subscribed, Marcellinus himself, first of all, with his own hand concluded it in his own anathema, subscribing to the anathema. And Diocletian, angered, sent to the same city, and drew many bishops to the crown of martyrdom. But nothing else came of it, since first three priests and two deacons had been condemned. And Marcellinus the bishop too was condemned by his own judgement on the X day before the Kalends of September, Diocletian for the VIII time and Maximian for the VII being consuls.

SANCTUS MARCELLUS PAPA.

SAINT MARCELLUS, POPE.

§ I. — Quando et quamdiu sederit.

§ I. — When and for how long he sat.

Post Marcellini obitum, ut ei successor deligeretur persecutionis tempestas non permisit. in Bucheriano catalogo Romana sedes tum vacasse dicitur VII annis, mensibus VI, diebus XXV. Sed ibi pro annis VII, Bucherius legendum esse opinatur annis III, eamque correctionem necessario postulant consules quibus Marcellus pontificatum iniisse in eodem catalogo notatur. Et facile quidem pro apice I, nota numerica V irrepsit. Unde sequitur, ut Marcellus anno 308, Maii XIX die, quae in feriam sextam cadebat, fuerit ordinatus. Tempus vero, quo is papa Ecclesiam administravit, laudatus catalogus sic designat: « Marcellus anno uno, mensibus VII, diebus XX, a consulatu X (supple Herculii) et Maximiano (leg. Maximiani VII), usque post consulatum X et VII, » hoc est usque in annum sequentem, qui post consulatum X (Herculii) et septimum (Maximiani) notabatur. Sed neque ex his quo die obierit, confici certo potest. Pagius, ad Marcellum papam referens quod in Hieronymiano

After the death of Marcellinus the storm of persecution did not permit a successor to be chosen for him. In the Bucherian catalogue the Roman see is said to have then been vacant for VII years, VI months, XXV days. But there, instead of VII years, Bucher thinks that III years should be read, and the consuls under whom Marcellus is noted in the same catalogue to have entered on the pontificate necessarily demand that correction. And indeed the numeral sign V easily crept in in place of the stroke I. From this it follows that Marcellus was ordained in the year 308, on the XIX day of May, which fell on a Friday. The time, moreover, for which this pope administered the Church the said catalogue marks thus: “Marcellus, one year, VII months, XX days, from the consulship X (supply: of Herculius) and Maximian (read: of Maximian VII) until after the consulship X and VII,” that is, until the following year, which was designated after the X consulship (of Herculius) and the seventh (of Maximian). But neither can it be determined with certainty from these on what day he died. Pagi, referring to Pope Marcellus what in the Hieronymian

Editors' notes and page, col. 19

Footnotes

(lemma) ‹anchor: Chirographum firmaverunt› · note in col 19

Chirographum firmaverunt. Duo mss. chirographum firmum : deinde ex iis unus, Urbanum, Castorium, Juvenalem presbyterorum horum, alter, Urbani, Castorii, etc.

"They confirmed the written bond." Two manuscripts have "the bond firm"; then one of them has "Urbanus, Castorius, Juvenal, of these priests", the other "of Urbanus, of Castorius", etc.

(lemma) ‹anchor: Futuri temporis› · note in col 19

Futuri temporis. Addidit corrector, in exemplum : quod satis arridet. Observat vir eruditus, saltem postquam se ipse Marcellinus damnasset, synodi muneris fuisse, ut Romanæ ecclesiæ, ne diutius sacerdote destitueretur, prospiceret. Nihil tamen de alio in locum Marcellini subrogando actum : ac nullum ei subrogatum esse constat.

"Of time to come." The corrector added "as an example," which is quite pleasing. A learned man observes that, at least once Marcellinus had condemned himself, it was the synod's duty to provide for the Roman church, so that it should not be left longer without a bishop. Yet nothing was done about putting another in Marcellinus's place, and it is certain that no one was put in his place.

(lemma) ‹anchor: In condemnationem› · note in cols 19–20

In condemnationem. Unus ms. in eamdem damnationem. Superiora autem verba, Dum esset in bello Persarum, notat Baronius falsa esse, cum hoc anno XX imperii sui Diocletianus se imperio abdicarit, atque ante biennium de Persis superatis Romæ una cum Maximiano collega suo triumphum egisset. Putat igitur hæc et quæ sequuntur non esse ex actis concilii, sed eis postmodum in morem appendicis esse adjecta. Verum omnes codices, qui superiora exhibent, exhibent et ista. Neque mirum est auctorem, qui in tot aliis cespitat, etiam hac in re labi.

"Into condemnation." One manuscript has "into the same condemnation." Baronius notes that the preceding words, "While he was in the war with the Persians," are false, since in this year, the twentieth of his reign, Diocletian abdicated the empire, and two years before had celebrated at Rome, together with his colleague Maximian, a triumph over the conquered Persians. He therefore thinks that these words and what follows are not from the acts of the council, but were added to them afterwards by way of an appendix. But all the codices that give the preceding matter give this too. Nor is it surprising that an author who stumbles in so many other things should slip in this matter also.

(printed under page 13)

Page

running head: 19 DE MARCELLO [cut off at the image edge]
marginal letters: A voce clara chirographum firmaverunt; B me corrupit (corrupi) auro; C beside the line below the caption "§ 1. — Quando et quamdiu sederit." (right-column "Appia"); D annum sequentem, qui post consulatum
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the page content (spurious acts of the Synod of Sinuessa on Marcellinus, then the editors' account of Pope Marcellus) is not Lactantius, so the volume label PL 6 may be wrong, though the column was set as printed; the "ANNOTATIONES." block (Chirographum firmaverunt...; Futuri temporis...; In condemnationem...) is page-foot commentary and was left for the later pass; the full-width lines "ANNOTATIONES." and the title "SANCTUS MARCE[LLUS]" with its rule, cut off at the right edge, were not set; editors' matter set: "§ 1. — Quando et quamdiu sederit." and "Post Marcellini obitum..."; small-capital numerals were set as capitals; "Corporanus" has a raised, deformed final s; the main text breaks off at "non tantum" and continues in col. 20.
running head: 19 DE MARCELLO 20
marginal letters: A voce clara chirographum (level with right column's tempore quod exigebat); B me corrupit (corrupi) auro (level with primo damnati); C § I. — Quando et quamdiu sederit / Post Marcellini (level with Appia depositio); D usque post consulatum (level with Januarii notat)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: full-width page set in reading order: upper left, upper right (end of the Gesta), title band, lower left; lower right is in c20. The ANNOTATIONES block (three notes, full width, between the Gesta and the title) was NOT written to n19: only c19_a/c20_a were assigned as outputs and the n-file was not opened; it still has to be set there. A note-call mark printed before SANCTUS MARCELLUS PAPA omitted. The title is printed on one line, SANCTUS MARCELLUS PAPA. Small-capital numerals set as capitals.
QA Q2: the ANNOTATIONES are now set above; the first note ("Chirographum firmaverunt"), earlier recorded as cut off, was completed from the column image; a stray raised mark printed after "unus" in that note is not set. Misprints kept as printed: "permisit. in Bucheriano" (lower-case "in" after the full stop).

PL 6:20

Martyrologio die VII octobris offendit; « Romae via Appia depositio Marcelli et Marci episcopi, » illum anno 309, Octobris VII die ad coelum migrasse pro certo ponit. Sed Marcellum « via Salaria, » non « via Appia » depositum seu sepultum esse certius est. Sane in eodem Martyrologio ad diem XVI Januarii exstat, « Romae via Salaria in coemeterio Priscillae depositio Marcelli episcopi et confessoris. » Huic concinit Pontificalis liber Bollandianus ex codice reginae Suecorum descriptus, in quo de Marcello scribitur, « Sepultus est in coemeterio Priscillae via Salaria, XVI Kalendas Februarii. » Ibi enim mendose ac forte librarii lapsu XVI pro XVII haberi colligimus ex altero ejusdem libri exemplari olim Fossatensi, nunc Colbertino, in quo « XVII Kalendas februarii, » non XVI, legimus. Immo Marcelli depositionem die XV Januarii notat Bucherianus depositionis Romanorum episcoporum indiculus in hunc modum: « XVIII Kalendas februarii Marcellini in Priscillae. » Huc quippe Marcellini nomen loco Marcelli irrepsisse manifestum est. Neque vero insolens est duorum illorum vocabulorum

Martyrology he found on the VII day of October, “At Rome on the Appian Way the deposition of Marcellus and Mark, bishops,” sets it down as certain that he passed to heaven in the year 309, on the VII day of October. But it is more certain that Marcellus was laid to rest or buried “on the Salarian Way,” not “on the Appian Way.” Indeed in the same Martyrology at the XVI day of January there stands: “At Rome on the Salarian Way in the cemetery of Priscilla, the deposition of Marcellus, bishop and confessor.” With this agrees the Bollandist Pontifical Book copied from the codex of the Queen of the Swedes, in which it is written of Marcellus: “He was buried in the cemetery of Priscilla on the Salarian Way, on the XVI day before the Kalends of February.” For that XVI stands there by error, and perhaps by a slip of the copyist, for XVII we gather from another copy of the same book, formerly of Fossés, now Colbert’s, in which we read “XVII day before the Kalends of February,” not XVI. Indeed the Bucherian little index of the depositions of the Roman bishops notes the deposition of Marcellus on the XV day of January in this manner: “On the XVIII day before the Kalends of February, of Marcellinus, in Priscilla’s.” Here, plainly, the name of Marcellinus has crept in in place of Marcellus. Nor indeed is it unusual for those two names

Editors' notes and page, col. 20

Page

running head: DE MARCELLO 20
marginal letters: A ‹tempore quod exigebat ordo›; B ‹primo damnati fuissent tres›; C ‹Appia depositio Marcelli et›; D ‹Januarii notat Bucherianus›
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column begins with the fragment "nem." of the annotations (word broken from the left column, which ends "-nnatio-"); column ends with "voca-" hyphenated at the column break. Full-width heading "ANNOTATIONES." between the text and the notes, and full-width title "MARCELLUS PAPA." with ornament after the rule, cut off at the left edge, not set. Editors' matter set: the annotation "nem. Alter, in ejus damnationem" (Annotationes in the text block, not page-foot notes) and the notice on Marcellus "Martyrologio die vii octobris offendit". UNSURE: "auctorem" (scan looks like "anctorem", read as worn u), "postmodum" and "migrasse" (scan blurred); lowercase numerals (x, xx, vii, xvi etc.) set as printed in small capitals.
running head: 19 DE MARCELLO 20
marginal letters: A tempore quod exigebat ordo; B primo damnati fuissent; C Appia depositio Marcelli; D Januarii notat Bucherianus
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: this file holds the lower right column only (reading order of the full-width page; the upper right column, end of the Gesta, is set in c19 before the title band). Pointer: the ANNOTATIONES notes printed on this page belong in n19 (not written in this pass). The last word is hyphenated across the column break, "voca-"; Q3 read the top of col 21 ("bulorum confusio.") and set the word whole here, "vocabulorum"; c21 already starts at "confusio" and its English at "to be confused", so the English here now ends "those two names".

PL 6:21

confusio. Inde enim contigisse videtur, ut Eusebius Marcelli nusquam meminerit, et in Chronico Eusebium papam, veluti proximum Marcellini successorem memorarit. Quocirca standum censemus eorum auctoritati monimentorum, quae Marcelli mortem mense Januario consignant. Cum hac quidem mortis Marcelli epocha componi prorsus nequit, quod Bucheriano in catalogo de tempore quo iste papa rexit Ecclesiam habetur, Sed apte quadrabunt omnia, si in eodem catalogo ita legerimus: « Marcellus anno uno, mensibus VII, diebus XXVII, a consulatu X Herculii et Maximiani VII, usque II (scilicet anno) post consulatum X et VII. » Et Marcelli quidem pontificatum ad secundum annum post decimum Herculii consulatum, hoc est ad annum Christi 310, prorogari necessario postulat id quod idem Bucherianus catalogus de hujus papae successoribus subjicit.

to be confused. For from this it seems to have come about that Eusebius nowhere made mention of Marcellus, and in the Chronicle recorded Pope Eusebius as, so to speak, the immediate successor of Marcellinus. Therefore we judge that one must stand by the authority of those records which assign the death of Marcellus to the month of January. With this date of Marcellus's death, indeed, what is held in the Bucherian catalogue about the time during which that pope ruled the Church can in no way be reconciled. But everything will fit aptly if in the same catalogue we read thus: "Marcellus one year, seven months, twenty-seven days, from the tenth consulship of Herculius and the seventh of Maximian, until the second (namely, year) after the consulship tenth and seventh." And indeed what the same Bucherian catalogue subjoins about the successors of this pope necessarily requires that the pontificate of Marcellus be extended to the second year after the tenth consulship of Herculius, that is, to the year of Christ 310.

§ II. — De constantia Marcelli in servanda poenitentiae disciplina.

§ II. — On the steadfastness of Marcellus in maintaining the discipline of penance.

1. Exstat de S. Marcello Damasi papae carmen a Baronio ad annum 309, n. 7, editum, et inter alia Damasi opera, Parisiis, anno 1672, typis Lud. Billaine, cum notis M. Milesii Sarrazanii, pag. 175 et alibi recusum, dignum sane quod et hic locum habeat; maxime cum ex eo quis Marcelli circa poenitentiam animus fuerit, perspicuum sit. Ita se habet.

1. There exists a poem of Pope Damasus on St Marcellus, published by Baronius under the year 309, no. 7, and reprinted among the other works of Damasus at Paris in the year 1672, from the press of Lud. Billaine, with the notes of M. Milesius Sarrazanius, p. 175, and elsewhere, truly worthy to have a place here too; especially since from it it is plain what the mind of Marcellus was concerning penance. It runs thus.

DE SANCTO MARCELLO MARTYRE

ON SAINT MARCELLUS THE MARTYR

DAMASI PAPAE CARMEN.

A POEM OF POPE DAMASUS.

Veridicus rector, lapsus quia crimina flere / Praedixit miseris, fuit omnibus hostis amarus. / Hinc furor, hinc odium sequitur, discordia, lites, / Seditio, caedes; solvuntur foedera pacis. / Crimen ob alterius Christum qui in pace negavit, / Finibus expulsus patriae est (Scil. Marcellus) feritate tyranni (Maxentii). / Haec breviter Damasus voluit comperta referre, / Marcelli ut populus meritum cognoscere posset.

A truthful ruler, because he told the wretched lapsed beforehand that they must weep for their crimes, / was a bitter enemy to all. / Hence fury, hence hatred follows, discord, quarrels, / sedition, slaughter; the bonds of peace are dissolved. / For the crime of another, who in time of peace denied Christ, / he (namely, Marcellus) was driven out from the borders of his homeland by the savagery of the tyrant (Maxentius). / These things, once learned, Damasus wished briefly to relate, / so that the people might be able to know the merit of Marcellus.

2. Virum illum, cujus ob crimen Marcellus in exilium deportatus dicitur, probabile est eumdem esse, cujus factione etiam Marcelli successor, Eusebius, eadem poena mulctatus est, quique in carmine de mox dicto sancto praesule infra exscribendo Heraclius nuncupatur. Poenitentiae videlicet remedium etsi necessarium lapsis, acerbum tamen et amarum est: ideoque semper aliquos offendit, qui et illud respuerent, et pios pastores, a quibus nihil sibi sperarent remittendum, velut molestos et infestos hostes haberent. Horum importunitati pridem clerus Romanus post Fabiani mortem minime cedendum ratus est. Iisdem fortiter et constanter resistenti Cypriano, ne tam necessaria disciplina labefactaretur, multa a factiosis fuerunt sustinenda. Tandem Marcellus omnia experiri, quam tantum malum permittere maluit. Neque ejus exilio deterritus est Eusebius, quominus quam decessor defenderat poenitentiae causam ac disciplinam, invicto animo propugnaret. Uterque merito appelletur martyr justitiae, quam videlicet Deo negant, qui postquam illum peccando offenderunt, ei digne per poenitentiam satisfacere detrectant.

2. It is probable that the man for whose crime Marcellus is said to have been deported into exile is the same as the one by whose faction Marcellus's successor, Eusebius, was also punished with the same penalty, and who in the poem on the holy bishop just mentioned, to be copied out below, is named Heraclius. The remedy of penance, namely, although necessary for the lapsed, is nevertheless harsh and bitter: and therefore it always offends some, who would both reject it and regard the godly pastors, from whom they could hope for nothing to be remitted to them, as troublesome and hostile enemies. To the importunity of such men the Roman clergy long ago, after the death of Fabian, judged that no ground at all should be yielded. Cyprian, resisting these same men bravely and steadfastly lest so necessary a discipline be undermined, had many things to endure from the factious. Finally Marcellus preferred to undergo everything rather than permit so great an evil. Nor was Eusebius deterred by his exile from defending with unconquered spirit the cause and discipline of penance which his predecessor had defended. Each may rightly be called a martyr of justice, which, namely, they deny to God who, after offending Him by sinning, refuse to make worthy satisfaction to Him through penance.

3. Tradit quidem Eusebius lib. VIII, cap. 14,

3. Eusebius indeed relates, book 8, chapter 14,

Editors' notes and page, col. 21

Page

running head: 21 DISCIPLINAE SERVATO[...] (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A ‹bulorum confusio. Inde enim›; B ‹prorogari necessario postulat›; C ‹Hinc furor, hinc odium›; D ‹tos hostes haberent. Horum›
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column begins with the fragment "bulorum", broken from the column before; editors' matter set throughout (dissertation on Pope Marcellus: ‹bulorum confusio›, § II ‹De constantia Marcelli›); the poem's verses are set as one paragraph separated by " / ", with the turnover "[tyranni (Maxentii)." joined to its verse; page number "pag. 175" unsure (possibly 173); no full-width line seen

PL 6:22

Maxentium tyrannidis arreptae principio fidei nostrae professionem simulasse. Sed cum simulata hujusmodi professione nil repugnat duorum pontificum relegatio. Cum enim ideo fidem nostram profiteri se simularet, ut placeret blandireturque p⟨o⟩pulo Romano, facile adductus est ut ex Urbe duos pelleret praesules, cum hoc populo gratum et acceptum fore, Heraclio persuadente, comperisset. Neque vero ad eos persequendos tum fidei causa, sed severitas nimia, quae seditionum origo esset, praetexebatur. Hinc Heraclium apud Maxentium gratia plurimum potuisse conjectura est, ex eoque exstitisse grege semichristianorum, quibus abundant principum domus, qui christiano cum nomine saeculi delicias componere amant; et cum peccare non timeant, horrent prorsus poenitentiae labores, eosque a se procul eliminari volunt.

that Maxentius at the beginning of the tyranny he had seized feigned a profession of our faith. But the banishment of two pontiffs is in no way inconsistent with a feigned profession of this kind. For since he pretended to profess our faith precisely in order to please and flatter the Roman people, he was easily induced to drive two prelates out of the City, once he had learned, at the persuasion of Heraclius, that this would be pleasing and acceptable to the people. Nor indeed was the faith then put forward as the pretext for persecuting them, but excessive severity, as being the origin of seditions. Hence it is a conjecture that Heraclius had very great influence with Maxentius, and that he came from that flock of half-Christians with whom the houses of princes abound, who love to combine the delights of the world with the Christian name; and though they do not fear to sin, they utterly shudder at the labours of penance and wish them banished far from themselves.

§ III. — De decreto quod Marcello adscribitur, ubi de usu quo pueros monasteriis parentes offerebant, disseritur.

§ III. — On the decree that is ascribed to Marcellus, in which the custom by which parents offered boys to monasteries is discussed.

1. Apud Gratianum, 20, quaest. I, c. 10, et exinde in editionibus Conciliorum, Marcelli nomine insignitum est hoc decretum: « Illud autem statuendum esse censemus, ut si minori aetate filii monasterio oblati fuerint, vel sacram tonsuram vel velamina susceperint, dignum quidem duximus, ut decimo-quinto anno a praelatis moniti, verbis inquirantur, utrum in ipso habitu permanere cupiant, an non. Si vero permanere professi fuerint, ulterius poenitendi « (Hoc est, habitum mutandi et ad saeculum revertendi), » locum minime amplecti possunt. Si vero ad saecularem habitum reverti voluerint, redeundi licentia nullo modo denegetur: quia satis inutile est, ut coacta servitia Domino praestentur. » Labbeus vero notat, ab auctore Glossae apud Gratianum Martino tribui, ejusque temporibus magis convenire.

1. In Gratian, 20, question 1, c. 10, and thence in the editions of the Councils, this decree is marked with the name of Marcellus: "This, moreover, we judge ought to be laid down: that if sons have been offered to a monastery at a younger age, or have received the sacred tonsure or the veils, we have indeed thought it fitting that in the fifteenth year, having been admonished by the prelates, they be asked in words whether they wish to remain in that habit or not. If they declare that they will remain, they can by no means thereafter embrace any place for repenting" (that is, for changing the habit and returning to the world). "But if they wish to return to the secular habit, leave to go back is in no way to be denied them: since it is quite useless that forced services be rendered to the Lord." Labbe, however, notes that by the author of the Gloss on Gratian it is attributed to Martin, and that it better suits his times.

2. Obscurum certe non est hoc decretum ad ea pertinere tempora, quibus de illo usu derogari coepit, qui jam pridem obtinebat, videlicet ut pueris, postquam monasteriis a parentibus fuissent oblati, propositum deserere, et ad saeculum regredi nefas esset. Hunc autem usum apud Graecos numquam receptum esse colligitur tum ex his Theodori, Cantuariensis archiepiscopi (Spicil., to. IX, p. 62): « Basilius judicavit pueris licentiam (leg. licere) nubere ante sexdecim annos, si abstinere non potuerint, quamvis monachi fuissent, tum ex ipsis Basilii verbis in Regulis fusius disputatis, interrog. 15, et in Brevioribus.

2. It is certainly not obscure that this decree belongs to those times in which a departure began to be made from that custom which had long prevailed, namely that it was unlawful for boys, after they had been offered to monasteries by their parents, to abandon their purpose and to return to the world. That this custom, however, was never received among the Greeks is gathered both from these words of Theodore, archbishop of Canterbury (Spicilegium, vol. 9, p. 62): "Basil judged leave (read: that it is lawful) for boys to marry before sixteen years, if they could not abstain, although they had been monks, and also from the very words of Basil in the Longer Rules, question 15, and in the Shorter.

3. At usum illum in Occidente asserit Benedictina Regula, cap. 59, eamque firmant non modo Isidori, Magistri, et aliorum Regulae, sed et plurium conciliorum tum in Gallia, tum in Hispania aut Germania habitorum, ac summorum pontificum decreta. His praeiverat Ecclesiae mos, Siricii Zosimique decretis stabilitus, quo filios ab infantia sacrae cleri militiae consecrare, et lectorum officio dicare fas erat, necnon usus qui ab incunabulis Ecclesiae constanter obtinuit, ut nimirum baptizarentur infantes, atque exinde christianis legibus ita tenerentur, « ut non

3. But in the West that custom is affirmed by the Benedictine Rule, chapter 59, and it is confirmed not only by the Rules of Isidore, of the Master, and of others, but also by the decrees of several councils held in Gaul as well as in Spain or Germany, and of the supreme pontiffs. These had been preceded by the practice of the Church, established by the decrees of Siricius and Zosimus, by which it was lawful to consecrate sons from infancy to the sacred warfare of the clergy and to dedicate them to the office of lectors, and also by the custom which has constantly prevailed from the cradle of the Church, namely that infants were baptized and were thenceforth so bound by Christian laws "that they should not

Editors' notes and page, col. 22

Page

running head: [...]INÆ SERVATORE. (beginning of running head cut off at left edge of image); column number 22
marginal letters: A Maxentium tyrannidis arreptae; B poenitentiae labores; C amplecti possunt; D nos, si abstinere
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: the whole column is editorial dissertation prose (Maxentium tyrannidis arreptae; § III. De decreto quod Marcello adscribitur), set in full; column begins mid-sentence continuing from col. 21; "p⟨o⟩pulo": letter lost to damaged type; "filii" printed looks like "lilii" (damaged f, UNSURE); "an non" type ambiguous, could read "au"; "offerebant" printed with a stray accent-like mark over a; "Benedictina" printed looks like "Benedietina" (damaged c, UNSURE); the « opened before Basilius has no closing » in this column; column ends mid-sentence at "ut non"

PL 6:23

impune desererent majores » (verba sunt concilii Toletani VIII, can. 7), « quod parvuli vel nesciendo vel nolendo perceperant. » Et hoc quidem exemplo mox dictum concilium evincit eos, qui, « aut eventu necessitatum aut metu periculorum adepti fuerant ecclesiasticarum officia dignitatum. « Horum officiorum legibus obligari, licet « cum illis haec imponerentur, id sibi fieri noluisse testarentur. » Quocirca concilium Aurelianense V, anno 549 habitum, can. 19, et Matisconense I, anno 581, can. 12, puellas, « seu propria voluntate monasterium expetant, « seu a parentibus offerantur, » si « aut voluntarie aut parentibus suis rogantibus religionem professae vel benedictionem consecutae, postea ad conjugium aut illecebras saeculi » transierint, communione privant. Anno 633, can. 49, Toletanum IV, concilium edixit : « Monachum aut paterna devotio, aut propria professio facit. Quidquid horum fuerit, alligatum tenebit. Proinde his ad mundum reverti intercludimus aditum, et omnem ad saeculum interdicimus regressum. » Idem decretum firmavit, anno 656, Toletanum X concilium, can. 6, atque illustravit his verbis : « Si in qualibet minori aetate, vel religionis tonsuram, vel religioni debitam vestem in utroque sexu filiis aut unus aut ambo parentes dederint, certe aut nolentibus vel nescientibus se susceptam, non mox visam in filiis abdicaverint, sed vel coram se, vel coram ecclesia, palamque in conventu eosdem filios talia habere permiserint, ad saecularem reverti habitum ipsis filiis quandoque penitus non licebit. » Gregorius II, anno 726, a Bonifacio Moguntino interrogatus : « Si pater vel mater filium vel filiam intra septa monasterii in infantiae annis sub regulari tradiderint disciplina, utrum liceat eis postquam pubertatis impleverint annos, egredi et matrimonio copulari, » haud dubius respondet : « Hoc omnino devitamus, quia nefas est, ut oblatis a parentibus Deo filiis voluptatis frena laxentur. » Verum ex hac Bonifacii interrogatione discimus, saltem nonnullis duram jam videri coepisse illam legem. Nihilo tamen minus eam in Germania ad annum 868 viguisse liquet ex Moguntiacensis concilii, hoc anno Ludovici pii jussu habiti, canone 22, quo sancitur : « Si pater et mater filium filiamque intra septa monasterii in infantiae annis sub regulari tradiderint disciplina ; non liceat eis, postquam ad pubertatis pervenerint annos, egredi et matrimonio copulari. » Quae verba ad propositam Bonifacii quaestionem omnino sunt accommodata. Prosequitur exinde concilium : « Igitur non liceat eis susceptum habitum unquam deserere : sed convicti quod tonsuram aut religiosam vestem aliquando habuerint, in religionis cultu habituque, velint nolint, permanere cogantur. » Et haec rursum expressa sunt ex canone 6 Toletani X concilii, tantum his verbis canonis, « ad religionis cultum habitumque revocentur, et sub aeterna (seu strenua) districtione hujusmodi observantiae inservire cogantur, » nonnihil mutatis, ut mutandi habitus potestas sublata planius enuntiaretur. Tum idem concilium, can. 23, renovat

as adults abandon with impunity » (the words are those of the eighth council of Toledo, can. 7), « what as little ones they had received either unknowingly or unwillingly. » And indeed by this example the council just mentioned establishes that those who « had obtained the offices of ecclesiastical dignities either through the pressure of necessities or through fear of dangers » « are bound by the laws of these offices, although « when these were imposed upon them, they testified that they had not wished this to be done to them. » Accordingly the fifth council of Orléans, held in the year 549, can. 19, and the first of Mâcon, in the year 581, can. 12, deprive of communion girls, « whether they seek the monastery of their own will, « or are offered by their parents, » if, « having either voluntarily or at their parents' request professed religion or received the blessing, they afterwards » pass over « to marriage or to the allurements of the world. » In the year 633, can. 49, the fourth council of Toledo decreed: « Either a father's devotion or one's own profession makes a monk. Whichever of these it may be, it will hold him bound. Therefore we close to these men the way of returning to the world, and we forbid every going back to secular life. » The same decree was confirmed in the year 656 by the tenth council of Toledo, can. 6, which explained it in these words: « If at any age under majority either one or both parents have given to their children of either sex either the tonsure of religion or the garb due to religion, then assuredly, if they did not reject it as soon as they saw it on their children, put on though it was without their will or without their knowledge, but allowed these same children to wear such things either in their own presence or in the presence of the church, and openly in the assembly, it will never at all be lawful for these children themselves to return to secular garb. » Gregory II, in the year 726, being asked by Boniface of Mainz, « If a father or mother have handed over a son or daughter within the precincts of a monastery in the years of infancy under regular discipline, whether it is lawful for them, after they have completed the years of puberty, to go out and be joined in marriage, » answers without hesitation: « This we altogether avoid, because it is an impiety that the reins of pleasure should be loosed for children offered to God by their parents. » But from this question of Boniface we learn that this law had already begun to seem harsh, at least to some. Nonetheless it is clear that it remained in force in Germany up to the year 868 from canon 22 of the council of Mainz, held in this year by order of Louis the Pious, by which it is enacted: « If a father and mother have handed over a son and daughter within the precincts of a monastery in the years of infancy under regular discipline, it shall not be lawful for them, after they have reached the years of puberty, to go out and be joined in marriage. » These words are entirely fitted to the question put by Boniface. Thereupon the council continues: « Therefore let it not be lawful for them ever to abandon the habit they have received; but, being proved to have at some time had the tonsure or religious garb, let them be compelled, whether they will or not, to remain in the practice and habit of religion. » And this in turn is drawn from canon 6 of the tenth council of Toledo, with only these words of the canon, « let them be recalled to the practice and habit of religion, and let them be compelled to serve such observance under perpetual (or strenuous) strictness, » somewhat altered, so that the removal of the power of changing the habit might be stated more plainly. Then the same council, can. 23, renews

Editors' notes and page, col. 23

Page

running head: 23 DE MARCELLO DISCIPLINÆ S[...] (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A impune desererent majores; B Toletanum IV, concilium edixit; C II, anno 726, a Bonifacio; D postquam ad pubertatis pervenerint
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter set (dissertation, running head "De Marcello disciplinae..."): impune desererent majores; column begins and ends mid-sentence; printed as one unbroken paragraph; "horum" in "Quidquid horum" has damaged type (looks like "hotum"), read as horum; small mark under "pubertatis" in can. 22 quote, taken as damaged type; guillemets set as printed, including unmatched openers; right-hand column (col. 24), partly visible, not set

PL 6:24

ac proprium sibi facit laudatum Toletani IV concilii statutum, quod sic effert: « Monachum ergo aut paterna devotio aut propria devotio facit. Quidquid horum fuerit, alligatum tenebit. Proinde huic ad mundum reverti intercludimus aditum, et omnes ad saeculum interdicimus regressus. »

and makes its own the praised statute of the fourth Council of Toledo, which runs thus: « Therefore either a father's devotion or one's own devotion makes a monk. Whichever of these it is, it will hold him bound. Accordingly we close to such a one the way of return to the world, and we forbid every going back to secular life. »

4. Quamobrem cum Capitulare Aquisgranense anni 817, c. 36, statuit, « Ut puerum pater et mater tempore oblationis offerant ad altare, et petitionem pro eo coram laicis testibus faciant, quam tempore intelligibili ipse confirmet, » haec postrema clausula majoris cautionis ergo addita censenda est, non quasi puero maturiori aetate jam facto parentum oblationem irritam facere liberum esset. Eo quidem saeculo Gotthescalcus, ut ex opusculo Rabani a Mabillonio nostro, to. II Annal. Bened., pag. 726 et seqq. edito colligitur, parentum, a quibus puer oblatus monasterio fuerat, voto refragatus est: verum non ea utebatur ratione, quia puer tum et impos sui erat, sed quia hoc parentes ejus coram idoneis testibus minime praestiterant, et cum ipsis, utpote Saxonibus, avita lege « nisi de propria sua esse gente testis posset, alienos adhibuerant. »

4. Therefore, when the Capitulary of Aachen of the year 817, c. 36, decreed « That the father and mother offer the boy at the altar at the time of the oblation, and make the petition for him before lay witnesses, which he himself should confirm at the age of understanding, » this last clause must be judged to have been added for the sake of greater caution, not as though the boy, once he had reached a more mature age, were free to make his parents' oblation void. Indeed in that same century Gottschalk, as is gathered from the little work of Rabanus edited by our Mabillon, vol. II of the Annales Benedictini, p. 726 ff., opposed the vow of his parents, by whom he had been offered as a boy to a monastery; but he did not use the argument that he was then a boy and not his own master, but that his parents had by no means done this before suitable witnesses, and that, whereas for them, being Saxons, by ancestral law « a man could be a witness only if he were of their own people, they had brought in outsiders. »

5. Circa idem tempus, ut in epistola Nicolai I, apud Gratianum, 20, quaes⟨t⟩. 3, cap. 4, et Ivonem, p. 6, c. 356, legitur, Lambertus quidam ab Athone patre suo inter octavum et undecimum annum cucullam indutus, a praedicto pontifice, ut et a monasticae vitae degendae obligatione absolveretur, et ne paterna vel materna haereditate fraudaretur, petens, non id causatus est: quia paterna oblatione teneri non posset, sed: quia « absque patris oblatione vel abbatis percepta benedictione monastico habitu indutus » fuerat; id pariter testante ipsius patre, quia « Neque ego, pater ejus, palla altaris, « ut Benedictina Regula praecipit, « indutum illum obtuli, neque a quocumque sacerdote vel abbate, ut mos deposcit, benedictione percepta, regulae umquam subactus est: » adeoque neque oblatus dici aut existimari debuit. Eadem ratione S. Bernardus, epist. I, ad Robertum nepotem, qui inter diversas suae a Cisterciensibus ad Cluniacenses defectionis causas, hanc afferebat: quod Cluniacensibus a parentibus suis oblatus fuerat, usus est in hunc modum: « Quamquam dubium non sit promissum illum fuisse, non donatum; nec enim petitio, quam Regula praecipit, pro eo facta fuit a parentibus, nec manus illius cum ipsa petitione involuta palla altaris, ut sic offerretur coram testibus. » Quamvis autem Nicolaus I, in judicio de Lamberti causa prolato, nequaquam existimare se rescribat, « Lambertum debere sub tali violentia fieri monachum, » quia « quod quis non elegit, nec optat, profecto non diligit; quod autem non diligit, facile contemnit: » tamen aliquanto post Rabanus istarum oblationum morem opusculo apud Mabillonium, ut superius dictum est, in lucem edito acriter propugnavit. Et quidem, anno 895, concilium Triburiense, can. 16, constituit: « Quem progenitores ad monasterium tradiderunt, et in ecclesia coeperit cantare et legere, nec uxorem ducere, nec monasterium

5. About the same time, as is read in the letter of Nicholas I, in Gratian, 20, q. 3, c. 4, and in Ivo, p. 6, c. 356, a certain Lambert, clothed in the cowl by his father Atto between his eighth and eleventh year, asking the aforesaid pontiff both that he might be released from the obligation of leading the monastic life and that he might not be defrauded of his paternal or maternal inheritance, did not plead that he could not be held by a father's oblation, but that he had been « clothed in the monastic habit without his father's oblation or the abbot's blessing having been received »; his father likewise bearing witness to this, namely that « Neither did I, his father, « as the Benedictine Rule prescribes, « offer him wrapped in the altar cloth, nor, a blessing having been received from any priest or abbot, as custom demands, was he ever made subject to the rule: » and so he ought not to be called or reckoned an oblate. On the same principle St Bernard, Letter 1, to his nephew Robert, who among the various reasons for his defection from the Cistercians to the Cluniacs alleged this one, that he had been offered to the Cluniacs by his parents, argued in this way: « Although there is no doubt that he was promised, not given; for neither was the petition which the Rule prescribes made for him by his parents, nor was his hand, together with that petition, wrapped in the altar cloth, so that he might thus be offered before witnesses. » But although Nicholas I, in the judgement delivered on Lambert's case, writes back that he by no means thinks « that Lambert ought to be made a monk under such compulsion, » because « what a man has not chosen and does not desire, he assuredly does not love; and what he does not love, he easily despises: » nevertheless somewhat later Rabanus vigorously defended the custom of these oblations in the little work brought to light by Mabillon, as was said above. And indeed, in the year 895, the Council of Tribur, can. 16, decreed: « Whom his forebears have handed over to a monastery, and who has begun to sing and read in the church, shall be able neither to take a wife nor, as regards the monastery,

Editors' notes and page, col. 24

Page

running head: DISCIPLINÆ SERVATORE. 24
marginal letters: A ‹ac proprium sibi facit›; B ‹lonio nostro, to. II Annal.›; C ‹causatus est: quia paterna›; D ‹Regula praecipit, pro eo facta›
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column begins mid-sentence ("ac proprium") and ends mid-word "mona-" (monachum/monasterium?, split at the column break); "quaes⟨t⟩." the t is damaged or broken (printed like "quæs:."); line-ends of the neighbouring column at the left edge of all three images are cut off and not set; content is a treatise on monastic oblation, not Lactantius, under the running head "DISCIPLINÆ SERVATORE.", so the identification as PL 6:24 is UNSURE; no editors' matter in the strict sense identified; Google digitization stamp at the foot not set

PL 6:25

sterium deserere poterit. Sed si discesserit, reducatur; si tonsuram dimiserit, rursum tondeatur; uxorem si usurpaverit, dimittere compellatur. »

leave the monastery. But if he departs, let him be brought back; if he has let his tonsure go, let him be tonsured again; if he has taken a wife, let him be compelled to put her away.”

6. Eumdem morem ad saeculum XII, perseverasse, cum ex epistola I Bernardi superius laudata, tum ex epistola Siberti ad Rodulfum abbatem sancti Trudonis, qui hoc saeculo florebat, necnon ex ea quam idem abbas rescripsit, perspicuum est (Decret. Gregorii IX, lib. III, tit. 31, cap. 11 et 12). Ipsi etiam saeculo illo desinente obsequendum esse censuerunt Alexander III et Clemens III. Tandem horum successor Coelestinus, de puero quem ante discretionis annos pater suus fecerat habitum monachalem suscipere, interrogatus, respondet (Ibid., c. 14): « Si dictus puer ad annos discretionis pervenerit, et habitum retinere noluerit monachalem, si ad hoc induci nequiverit, non est ullatenus compellendus; quia tum liberum sibi erit eum dimittere, et bona paterna, quae sibi ex successione proveniunt, postulare. »

6. That the same custom persisted to the XII century is clear both from Letter I of Bernard, cited above, and from the letter of Sibert to Rodulf, abbot of Saint-Trond, who flourished in this century, and also from the one which the same abbot wrote in reply (Decretals of Gregory IX, book III, title 31, chapters 11 and 12). Even as that century was ending, Alexander III and Clement III judged that it was to be obeyed. At length their successor Celestine, asked about a boy whom his father had made take the monastic habit before the years of discretion, replies (ibid., chapter 14): “If the said boy reaches the years of discretion and is unwilling to keep the monastic habit, if he cannot be brought to this, he is by no means to be compelled; for then he will be free to put it off, and to claim the paternal goods which come to him by succession.”

7. Ea tamen lex jam antea nonnullis in locis antiquari coeperat. Et Nicolao quidem I, ut supra audivimus, durior visa erat, et libertatem, quam hujusmodi status electio desiderat, laedere. Nec alia de causa Bonifacius Moguntinus antea Gregorium II sibi de illa consulendum duxerat. Postmodum vero Cluniacenses quoddam ei temperamentum videntur adhibuisse. Horum quippe consuetudines ante medium saeculum X describens S. Udalricus lib. III, c. 8, relata puerorum oblatione ejusque ritu, proxime subjicit: « Postea induitur (puer) cuculla, et de caetero benedictio ejus differtur usque ad legitimam aetatem, id est, si non amplius, vel usque ad QUINDECIM ANNOS. » Eumdem morem innuere videtur et Clemens III, loco jam citato, ubi puellae, ante discretionis annos a parentibus monasterio traditae ad saeculum revertendi aditum penitus interdicens, istam interdicti hujus rationem adjicit: « Non enim videtur illa monasticae professionis a se posse jugum excutere, cum eam non constet evidenter contradixisse, cum benedictionem accepit, quam nonnisi in aetate discretionis recipiunt quae velantur, praesertim si ratihabitione secuta, etsi eam quandoque contradixisse constiterit, roboratur. » Tria quippe complectitur haec ratio: 1° puellas benedici non consuevisse, nisi cum ad aetatem discretionis pervenissent; deinde, eis tunc benedictioni hujusmodi contradicendi potestatem fuisse; postremo, contradicentibus aditum ad saeculi regressum patuisse.

7. That law, however, had already earlier begun to fall out of use in some places. And to Nicholas I indeed, as we heard above, it had seemed too harsh, and to injure the freedom which the choice of such a state requires. Nor for any other reason had Boniface of Mainz earlier judged that Gregory II should be consulted by him about it. Afterwards, however, the Cluniacs seem to have applied a certain mitigation to it. For Saint Udalric, describing their customs before the middle of the X century, book III, chapter 8, having related the offering of boys and its rite, adds immediately: “Afterwards he (the boy) is clothed with the cowl, and for the rest his blessing is deferred until the lawful age, that is, if not longer, at least until FIFTEEN YEARS.” Clement III too seems to hint at the same custom, in the place already cited, where, wholly forbidding to a girl given to a monastery by her parents before the years of discretion the way of returning to the world, he adds this reason for the prohibition: “For she does not seem able to shake off from herself the yoke of the monastic profession, since it is not established that she clearly objected when she received the blessing, which those who are veiled receive only at the age of discretion, especially if, ratification having followed, it is confirmed, even if it should be established that she once objected.” For this reason embraces three things: 1st, that girls were not customarily blessed until they had reached the age of discretion; next, that they then had the power of objecting to a blessing of this kind; lastly, that the way of return to the world lay open to those who objected.

8. Porro ex omnibus testimoniis quae colligere aut videre nobis hac de re licuit, nullum est, quod cum decreto nostro magis consentiat, quam quod ex consuetudinibus Cluniacensium protulimus. Quare illud ad exitum saeculi noni aut initium decimi referre licet. Aut etiam serius est differendum, si benedictio, quam Cluniacensium consuetudines aetate legitima praecipiunt, instituta sit, ut puer jam sui compos ratam faceret atque confirmaret parentum oblationem, non ut optio ei daretur repetendi saeculum.

8. Moreover, of all the testimonies on this matter which we have been able to collect or see, there is none which agrees more with our decree than the one we have brought forward from the customs of the Cluniacs. Therefore it may be referred to the end of the ninth century or the beginning of the tenth. Or it must even be put later, if the blessing which the customs of the Cluniacs prescribe at the lawful age was instituted so that the boy, now master of himself, might ratify and confirm his parents’ offering, not so that the choice of returning to the world might be given him.

SANCTUS EUSEBIUS PAPA.

SAINT EUSEBIUS, POPE.

§ I. — Quando et quamdiu sederit.

§ I. — When and for how long he sat.

Eusebius in pluribus pontificalis libri exemplaribus annos VI, mensem I, dies III, in aliis annos II, mensem I, dies XXV, sedisse dicitur. Eum Eusebius Caesariensis episcopus in Chronico septem mensibus Ecclesiam administrasse scribit. De hoc papa istud tantum in Bucheriano catalogo habemus: « Eusebius menses IV, dies XVI, a XIV Kalendas Maias ad XVI Kalendas Septembris. » In quo sibi non cohaeret iste catalogus, cum a XIV Kalendas Maias ad XVI Kalendas Septembres quatuor dumtaxat menses uno die minus interjiciantur. Ab eo etiam dissidet Bucherianus depositionis Romanorum pontificum catalogus, in quo legitur: « VI Kalendas Octobris Eusebii in Callisti. » Unde Eusebium Septembris XXVI die in Callisti coemeterio depositum fuisse discimus. Et huic quidem indiculo martyrologia vetera et plures libri pontificalis codices suffragantur. Quare suspicio est

Eusebius is said in several copies of the Pontifical Book to have sat VI years, I month, III days, in others II years, I month, XXV days. Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, writes in his Chronicle that he administered the Church for seven months. Of this pope we have only this in the Bucherian catalogue: “Eusebius, IV months, XVI days, from the XIV day before the Kalends of May to the XVI day before the Kalends of September.” In this the catalogue is not consistent with itself, since from the XIV day before the Kalends of May to the XVI day before the Kalends of September only four months less one day intervene. The Bucherian catalogue of the depositions of the Roman pontiffs also disagrees with it, in which is read: “On the VI day before the Kalends of October, of Eusebius, in Callistus’s.” From this we learn that Eusebius was laid to rest in the cemetery of Callistus on the XXVI day of September. And to this little index the old martyrologies and several codices of the Pontifical Book lend their support. Hence the suspicion is

Editors' notes and page, col. 25

Page

running head: 25 EUSEBIUS PAPA QUANDO (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A ‹sterium deserere poterit›; B ‹duci nequiverit, non est ullatenus›; C ‹§ I. — Quando et quamdiu sederit›; D ‹in Callisti. » Unde Eusebium›
old-edition numerals: (none)
running head: 25 EUSEBIUS PAPA QUANDO SEDERIT. 26
marginal letters: A sterium deserere poterit (level with right column's cit: « Postea); B duci nequiverit (level with tioni hujusmodi); C § I. — Quando et quamdiu sederit (level with librarium); D in Callisti. » Unde (level with vixisse conficitur)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: full-width page set in reading order: upper left, upper right (paras 5 end to 8), title band, lower left; lower right is in c26. "subji-|cit" across the upper columns joined within this file as "subjicit". The first word "sterium" is the tail of a word begun in col 24, set as printed. A note-call mark printed before SANCTUS EUSEBIUS PAPA omitted. Small-capital numerals set as capitals.

PL 6:26

librarium, qui Bucherianum catalogum descripsit, pro « VI Kal. Octobris » per oscitantiam scripsisse « XVI Kal. Septembris, » addita videlicet de suo nota numerica X et « Septembris, » ut vicini mensis vocabulo, quod interdum accidit, « Octobris » loco substituto. Quocirca doctus Tillemontius laudato indiculo aliisque monimentis eidem suffragantibus standum existimans, ac menses quatuor et sexdecim dies, qui Bucheriano in catalogo Eusebii pontificatui adscribuntur, retinens, hunc papam X Maii die, anni 310, creatum, et eodem anno XXVI Septembris die ad vitam meliorem migrasse censet. Sane chronologi peritiores Eusebium nonnisi anno 310 regimen Ecclesiae suscepisse, atque ante Septembris exitum obiisse consentiunt. Unde hunc papam nullo Decembri mense vixisse conficitur. Quae igitur habenda fides seu Bollandiano libri pontificalis codici, in quo tres ei ordinationes per mensem Decembrem attribuuntur, seu alii, in quibus unam eodem mense fecisse narratur?

that the copyist who wrote out the Bucherian catalogue through carelessness wrote “XVI day before the Kalends of September” instead of “VI day before the Kalends of October,” having of course added the numeral sign X of his own accord, and “September,” the name of the neighbouring month having been substituted, as sometimes happens, in place of “October.” Therefore the learned Tillemont, judging that one should stand by the said little index and the other records that support it, and retaining the four months and sixteen days which are ascribed in the Bucherian catalogue to the pontificate of Eusebius, holds that this pope was created on the X day of May in the year 310, and passed to the better life on the XXVI day of September of the same year. Indeed the more skilled chronologers agree that Eusebius took up the government of the Church only in the year 310, and died before the end of September. From this it follows that this pope lived in no month of December. What credence, then, is to be given either to the Bollandist codex of the Pontifical Book, in which three ordinations in the month of December are attributed to him, or to the others, in which he is related to have held one in the same month?

Editors' notes and page, col. 26

Page

running head: PAPA QUANDO SEDERIT. 26
marginal letters: A cit: « Postea induitur; B tioni hujusmodi contradicendi; C librarium, qui Bucherianum; D vixisse conficitur. Quae igitur
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column begins with the fragment "cit" of a word broken from column 25; editors' matter set: prolegomena on the popes' dates, first words "cit: « Postea induitur" (end of a section on child oblation) and the section on Eusebius, first words "librarium, qui Bucherianum"; full-width rule and heading "EUSEBIUS PAPA." printed across both columns between paragraph 8 and "librarium" are not set; QUINDECIM ANNOS and the numerals VI, XVI, X, XXVI printed in small capitals; last line damaged, "unam eodem" read from worn type (UNSURE); stray marks after "migrasse" and "libri" ignored
running head: 25 EUSEBIUS PAPA QUANDO SEDERIT. 26
marginal letters: A cit: « Postea induitur; B tioni hujusmodi contradicendi; C librarium, qui Bucherianum; D vixisse conficitur
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: this file holds the lower right column only (reading order of the full-width page; the upper right column is set in c25 before the title band). "alii" set as printed (one might expect aliis); the English takes it as the other codices.

PL 6:27

§ II. — In quo vulgatum de S. Eusebio carmen explicatur.

§ II. In which the well-known poem on St Eusebius is explained.

EPIGRAMMA DE S. EUSEBIO.

Epigram on St Eusebius.

Heraclius vetuit lapsos peccata dolere; / Eusebius miseros docuit sua crimina flere. / Scinditur in partes populus gliscente furore, / Sedet loca edes (leg. Seditio, caedes) bellum, discordia, lites.

Heraclius forbade the lapsed to grieve for their sins; / Eusebius taught the wretched to weep for their crimes. / The people is split into factions as fury grows: / Sedet loca edes (read Seditio, caedes, that is, sedition, slaughter), war, discord, strife.

Exemplo pariter pulsi feritate tyranni, / Integra cum rector servaret foedera pacis, / Pertulit exilium omnino sub judice laetus / Littore Trinacrio mundum vitamque reliquit.

After the example of one likewise driven out by the savagery of the tyrant, / since as ruler he kept the covenants of peace intact, / he bore exile under the judge wholly gladly, / and on the Trinacrian shore he left the world and life.

§ III. — De epistolis ac decretis Eusebio papae adscriptis.

§ III. On the letters and decrees ascribed to Pope Eusebius.

1. Tres epistolas aperte falsas, et ab Isidoro Mercatore Eusebii nomine confictas, cum caeteris in ejusdem officina cusis, Deo dante, forte alibi edemus.

1. Three letters that are openly false and were fabricated by Isidore Mercator under the name of Eusebius, we shall perhaps publish elsewhere, God granting, together with the others forged in the same man's workshop.

2. Praeterea in editionibus Conciliorum quatuor circumferuntur decreta e variis canonum collectionibus, in quibus Eusebii nomine insigniuntur, collecta. Horum primum, « Desponsatam puellam parentibus non licet alii viro tradere; licet tamen monasterium sibi eligere, » quod Gratianus 27, quaest. 2, cap. 27, Ivo p. 8, c. 40; Buchardus lib. VIII, cap. 4, Eusebio adscribunt, est Poenitentialis Theodori Cantuariensis episcopi apud Petitum, tom. I, p. 12, cap. 11, subinde lib. VI Capitularium, cap. 92, insertum his verbis: « Puellam desponsatam non licet parentibus dare alteri viro: tamen ad monasterium licet ire si voluerit. » Haec autem postrema pars de potestate petendi monasterium, Justiniani imp. cum Cod. lib. I,

2. Besides these, four decrees are in circulation in the editions of the Councils, collected from various collections of canons in which they are marked with the name of Eusebius. The first of them, "It is not permitted for parents to give a betrothed girl to another man; she is permitted, however, to choose a monastery for herself," which Gratian (27, question 2, chapter 27), Ivo (part 8, chapter 40) and Buchardus (book 8, chapter 4) ascribe to Eusebius, belongs to the Penitential of Theodore, bishop of Canterbury, in Petit, vol. 1, p. 12, chapter 11, and was afterwards inserted in book 6 of the Capitularies, chapter 92, in these words: "It is not permitted for parents to give a betrothed girl to another man; but she is permitted to go to a monastery if she wishes." This last part, however, concerning the power of seeking a monastery, both by the Code of the Emperor Justinian, book 1,

Editors' notes and page, col. 27

Footnotes

(printed under page 17)

(1) ‹anchor: not visible (title of the epigram)› · note in col 27

(printed under page 17) (1) Istud epigramma, seu epitaphium, Baronius in novissima editione Antuerpiensi ad annum 357, num. 57, non sine cunctatione, ad Eusebium presbyterum, qui Liberio pontifice vitam finiit, refert. Illud potius ad Eusebium papam attinere judicat Tillemontius, ejusque judicio ultro subscribimus. Nec mirum est, dignum Marcelli successorem eam Ecclesiæ disciplinam, ob cujus defensionem sanctus ille decessor exilio mulctatus fuerat, acriter vindicasse, eaque de causa, eodem Christi apostata instante, ab eodem tyranno eamdem pœnam subiisse. Quocirca etiam ipse qui superius de S. Marcello carmen adornavit Damasus, etiam istud concinnasse haud immerito censeatur.

(1) This epigram, or epitaph, Baronius in the latest Antwerp edition, at the year 357, num. 57, refers, not without hesitation, to Eusebius the presbyter, who ended his life under Pope Liberius. Tillemont judges rather that it belongs to Pope Eusebius, and we readily subscribe to his judgement. Nor is it surprising that the worthy successor of Marcellus vigorously upheld that discipline of the Church for whose defence that holy predecessor had been punished with exile, and that for that reason, at the instance of the same apostate from Christ, he underwent the same penalty from the same tyrant. Hence Damasus, who composed the poem on St. Marcellus above, may not undeservedly be thought to have composed this one too.

(printed under page 17)

(2) ‹anchor: not visible› · note in col 27

(printed under page 17) (2) Hic nomen exprimi videtur apostatæ illius, quem in pace Christum negasse superius de S. Marcello carmen memorat. Nomine autem lapsorum ii tunc vulgo designabantur, qui idolorum se sacrificiis contaminarant, vel in quodvis incurrerant idololatriæ scelus, ut Cypriani opus simpliciter inscriptum de Lapsis, ejusque epistolæ passim probant.

(2) Here the name seems to be expressed of that apostate who, the poem on St. Marcellus above relates, denied Christ in time of peace. By the name of "the lapsed" were then commonly designated those who had defiled themselves with the sacrifices of idols, or had incurred any crime of idolatry whatever, as Cyprian's work entitled simply On the Lapsed, and his letters throughout, prove.

(printed under page 17)

(3) ‹anchor: not visible› · note in col 27

(printed under page 17) (3) Hic memoratur exemplum Marcelli, qui pariter a Maxentio tyranno in exilium pulsus fuerat.

(3) Here the example of Marcellus is recalled, who likewise had been driven into exile by the tyrant Maxentius.

(printed under page 17)

(4) ‹anchor: rector› · note in col 27

(printed under page 17) (4) Damaso rectoris nomine Romanum pontificem indicare quam familiare fuerit, Milesius Sarazanius in illud superioris epigrammatis, Veridicus rector, pluribus exemplis demonstrat. Ideo autem Eusebius integra pacis fœdera servare nunc velle dicitur, quia pacem lapsis concedere nolebat, nisi iis conditionibus quibus eam dandam esse Cornelius cum toto orbe decreverat. Quocirca dicitur miseros peccata sua flere et per dignos pœnitentiæ fructus diluere docuisse; cum contra nollet Heraclius eos peccata dolere, sed statim prætermissis pœnitentiæ laboribus pacem recipere. Eadem loquendi ratione deflet epigramma de Marcello, quod solvuntur fœdera pacis.

(4) How customary it was for Damasus to designate the Roman pontiff by the name of "ruler," Milesius Sarazanius shows by many examples, on that line of the earlier epigram, "Veridicus rector" ("the truthful ruler"). Eusebius is said now to wish to keep the terms of peace whole because he refused to grant peace to the lapsed except on the conditions on which Cornelius, with the whole world, had decreed it should be given. Hence he is said to have taught the wretched to weep for their sins and to wash them away by worthy fruits of penance; whereas Heraclius, on the contrary, would not have them grieve for their sins, but receive peace at once, the labours of penance passed over. In the same manner of speaking the epigram on Marcellus laments that "the terms of peace are dissolved."

(printed under page 17)

(5) ‹anchor: not visible› · note in col 27

(printed under page 17) (5) Videlicet relegatus in Siciliam, quæ Straboni et Plinio a tribus promontoriis, Peloro, Pachyro et Lilybæo, Trinacria dicta est. Ibi Eusebium vita functum, ad cœlos migrasse nostri epigrammatis conditor docet.

(5) That is, banished to Sicily, which Strabo and Pliny say was called Trinacria from its three promontories, Pelorus, Pachynus and Lilybaeum. The author of our epigram teaches that Eusebius, having ended his life there, passed to heaven.

(printed under page 17)

Page

running head: 27 DE EPISTOLIS EUSEBIO AD (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A § II. — In quo vulgatum de S. Eusebio; B circumferuntur decreta e variis canonum collectioni-; C 57, non sine cunctatione (in footnote 1); D (3) Hic memoratur exemplum Marcelli (in footnote 3)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 6:28

tit. 3, lege 56, tum Novella 123, cap. 39, necnon a Gregorio Indict. XV, epist. 20, ad Fortunat. et Cypr. approbatur.

title 3, law 56, and by Novel 123, chapter 39, and also by Gregory in Indiction 15, letter 20, to Fortunatus and Cyprian, is approved.

3. Secundum, « Consulto omnium statuimus, ut sacrificium altaris non in serico panno, aut tincto quisquam celebrare praesumat; etc., » apud Gratianum, de Consecratione dist. I, cap. 46, Eusebii simul et Silvestri; apud Ivonem, par. VII, c. 40, et Burchardum, lib. III, cap. 99, unius Eusebii; ac demum apud Anselmum, lib. IX, cap. 2, unius Silvestri prae se fert nomen. Ex gestis autem Silvestri libro Pontificali insertis, quae Labbeus, tom. I Concil., pag. 1542, edidit, excerptum est.

3. The second, « By the counsel of all we have decreed that no one should presume to celebrate the sacrifice of the altar on a silk cloth or on a dyed one, etc., » bears in Gratian, On Consecration, distinction 1, chapter 46, the name of Eusebius and Silvester together; in Ivo, part 7, chapter 40, and in Burchard, book 3, chapter 99, that of Eusebius alone; and finally in Anselm, book 9, chapter 2, that of Silvester alone. But it has been excerpted from the acts of Silvester inserted in the Pontifical Book, which Labbe published in volume 1 of the Councils, page 1542.

4. Tertium, « Jejunia in Ecclesia a sacerdotibus constituta sine necessitate rationabili non solvantur, » ex Gratiano de Consecr. dist. 5, c. 17, descriptum, et ab Ivone, par. IV, cap. 49, necnon Burchardo, lib. XIII, cap. 17, velut « ex dictis Eusebii papae, cap. 10, citatum, » in Capitulari 1, quod Steph. Baluzius Capitulis anni 813, pag. 517, subjecit, est capitulum 23.

4. The third, « Fasts appointed in the Church by priests are not to be broken without reasonable necessity, » copied out from Gratian, On Consecration, distinction 5, chapter 17, and cited by Ivo, part 4, chapter 49, and also by Burchard, book 13, chapter 17, as « from the sayings of Pope Eusebius, chapter 10, » is chapter 23 in Capitulary 1, which Stephen Baluze appended to the Capitularies of the year 813, page 517.

5. Quartum, e codice quinque librorum, cap. 41, ita profertur : « Oportet episcopum moderatis epulis contentum esse, suosque convivas ad comedendum et bibendum non urgere. Removeantur ab ejus convivio cuncta turpitudinis argumenta : non ludicra spectacula, non acroamatum vaniloquia, non fatuorum stultiloquia, non scurrilium admittantur praestigia. Adsint peregrini et pauperes et debiles, qui de sacerdotali mensa Christum benedicentes, benedictionem percipiant. Recitetur sacra lectio, subsequatur vivae vocis exhortatio : ut non tantum corporali cibo, immo verbi spiritalis alimento convivantes se refectos gratulentur, ut in omnibus honorificetur Deus per Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum. » Idem quoque Ivo, par. XIII, c. 75, et Burchardus, lib. XIV, c. 4, velut « ex decretis Eusebii, cap. 10 » citant. Sapientissimum quidem est decretum, nihilque praecipit quod Eusebio videatur indignum : sed id quod prohibet, in illius aetatem minime arbitramur convenire. Tunc opus non erat, ut ab episcoporum mensa seu spectacula ludicra, seu scurrilium praestigia removerentur. Ecclesiis tum maxime praeerant ii antistites, quorum modestiae laudes etiam gentilis ac religionis nostrae adversarius scriptor negare non valuit, « quos » nimirum « tenuitas edendi potandique parcissime, vilitas etiam indumentorum, et supercilia humum spectantia perpetuo numini verisque ejus cultoribus ut puros commendabant et verecundos. » Ita porro Damasi aevo Ammianus Marcellinus, lib. XXVII, cap. 3, loquebatur. Praedicto autem decreto affine est quod anno 813 concilium Turonense III, can. 5 constituit: « Episcopum non oportere profusis incumbere conviviis : sed parco et moderato contentus sit cibo, ne videatur Domini abuti sententia dicentis : Attendite ne graventur corda vestra in crapula et ebrietate (Luc., XXI, 34). Et quamdiu convivatur, potius sacra lectio ante mensam ejus recitetur, quam otiosa a susurronibus resonent verba. » Et can. 6 : « Peregrini et

5. The fourth is brought forward from the codex of five books, chapter 41, thus: « A bishop ought to be content with moderate meals, and not to urge his guests to eat and drink. Let all occasions of indecency be removed from his banquet: let no theatrical shows, no idle talk of entertainers, no foolish talk of jesters, no tricks of buffoons be admitted. Let strangers and the poor and the infirm be present, who, blessing Christ at the priestly table, may receive a blessing. Let a sacred reading be recited, and let an exhortation by the living voice follow, so that the guests may rejoice to be refreshed not only with bodily food but rather with the nourishment of the spiritual word, so that in all things God may be honoured through Jesus Christ our Lord. » Ivo too, part 13, chapter 75, and Burchard, book 14, chapter 4, cite the same as « from the decrees of Eusebius, chapter 10. » The decree is indeed most wise, and enjoins nothing that would seem unworthy of Eusebius; but what it forbids we judge by no means to fit his age. At that time there was no need for either theatrical shows or the tricks of buffoons to be removed from the table of bishops. The churches were then presided over above all by those prelates whose praises for modesty even a pagan writer, an adversary of our religion, could not deny, « whom », namely, « sparing frugality in eating and drinking, plainness too of clothing, and eyes cast down to the ground commended to the eternal deity and to its true worshippers as pure and modest. » So indeed spoke Ammianus Marcellinus in the age of Damasus, book 27, chapter 3. Akin to the aforesaid decree, moreover, is what the Third Council of Tours in the year 813 laid down in canon 5: « That a bishop ought not to devote himself to lavish banquets, but should be content with sparing and moderate food, lest he seem to abuse the saying of the Lord, Who says: Take heed lest your hearts be weighed down with surfeiting and drunkenness (Luke 21:34). And for as long as he is at table, let a sacred reading rather be recited before his table than idle words resound from whisperers. » And canon 6: « Strangers and

Editors' notes and page, col. 28

Page

running head: S EUSEBIO ADSCRIPTIS. 28 (left part cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A ‹tit. 3, lege 56›; B ‹ex Gratiano de Consecr.›; C ‹nem percipiant. Recitetur›; D ‹adversarius scriptor negare›
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: the whole column is the editors' prolegomena on decrees ascribed to Eusebius (first words ‹tit. 3, lege 56›), set in full; column begins mid-sentence; cut-off fragments of the neighbouring column at the left edge not set; punctuation after praesumat read as semicolon; small-capital Roman numerals in references set as capitals

PL 6:29

pauperes convivae sint episcoporum, cum quibus non solum corporali, sed et spiritali reficiantur cibo. » Vide et concilium Remense II, eodem anno habitum, can. 17 et 18. Unde et tempus conjici potest quo decretum Eusebio attributum prodiit.

the poor may be the table-companions of the bishops, with whom they may be refreshed not only with bodily but also with spiritual food.” See also the II Council of Reims, held in the same year, canons 17 and 18. From this too the time can be conjectured at which the decree attributed to Eusebius came out.

6. His adjici potuisset quintum, « Si evenerit fames, etc., » qnod Ivo, par. IV, c. 50, proximo decreto subjicit, ac velut ex iisdem Eusebii decretis, cap. 2, laudat. Verum istud Burchardus, lib. XIII, cap. 18, refert ut « ex decretis Liberii papae, c. 2 » Exscriptum est autem ex libro I Capitularium, cap. 118.

6. To these a fifth could have been added, “If famine should occur, etc.,” which Ivo, part IV, chapter 50, places after the preceding decree, and cites as from the same decrees of Eusebius, chapter 2. But Burchard, book XIII, chapter 18, reports it as “from the decrees of Pope Liberius, chapter 2.” It was, however, copied out of book I of the Capitularies, chapter 118.

SANCTUS MELCHIADES PAPA.

SAINT MELCHIADES, POPE.

§ I. — Quando et quamdiu sederit.

§ I. — When and for how long he sat.

1. Melchiades Bucheriano in catalogo, in quo, ut in plerisque veteribus monimentis, Miltiades nuncupatur, Petri cathedram tenuisse dicitur « ex die VI Nonas Julias a consulatu Maximiano VIII solo, quod fuit mense Septembri Volusiano et Rufino, usque in III Idus Januarii Volusiano et Anniano consulibus. » Quae inscriptio ut intelligatur, observandum est Maximianum Galerium solum ab initio anni 311 ad mensem Septembrem consulatum gessisse, hoc autem mense Volusianum Rufium creatum esse consulem, adjuncto ei collega Eusebio, cujus nomen aliquando reticentes antiquarii, unius Volusiani duo nomina quasi duorum consulum expresserunt, et Rufino pro Rufio substituerunt. Hanc explicationem nostram illustrant ac firmant: 1° indiculus praefectorum Urbis apud Bucherium, p. 238, in quo ad annum 310 legimus: « V kalendas Novembris Rufius Volusianus P. U. » Hoc est praefectus Urbis: tum proxime sequitur ad annum 311, « Consules, quos jusserint DD. NN. Augusti. Ex mense Septembri factum est Rufino et Eusebio; » 2° Fastorum consularium fragmentum apud eumdem Bucherium, pag. 250, in quo annus 311 sic designatur: « Maximiano VIII solo; » item fasti integriores Bucheriani, pag. 42, qui ad eumdem annum prae se ferunt, « Imp. Galerius Maximianus VIII, Imp. Licinius aug. » al. « Rufinus et Eusebius; » ac demum quod in fastis Idacianis memoratur, « Maximiano VIII consule. » His conss. quod est Rufino et Volusiano, diem functus Maximianus junior. » Quocirca Miltiades, seu Melchiades, anno 311, Julii II die, qui secundam in feriam cadebat, ordinatus, anno 314, Januarii die II, sepultus dicendus est. Ipsius autem mors decimo ejusdem mensis die in Bucheriano depositionis Romanorum pontificum indiculo ita consignatur: « IV Idus Januarii Miltiadis in Callisti. » Eodem quoque die notatur in Martyrologio Hieronymiano, quamvis in eodem Martyrologio rursum ad diem II Julii: « Depositio Miltiadis papae » legatur. Sed hic Papebrocius diem ordinationem ejus, Pagius vero reliquiarum ejusdem translationem, cujusmodi solemnitatem ipso natalis seu ordinationis Romanorum pontificum die saepius celebratam asserit, recoli opinantur. Neque igitur ad Melchiadis obitum, sed ad aliquam aliam solemnitatem referendum est, quod in Ecclesia romana die X mensis Decembris memoria ejus colitur.

1. Melchiades, in the Bucherian catalogue, in which, as in most of the old records, he is called Miltiades, is said to have held the chair of Peter “from the VI day before the Nones of July, from the consulship of Maximian alone for the VIII time, which was in the month of September Volusian and Rufinus, until the III day before the Ides of January, Volusian and Annianus being consuls.” In order that this entry may be understood, it must be observed that Maximian Galerius held the consulship alone from the beginning of the year 311 to the month of September, but that in this month Volusianus Rufius was created consul, with Eusebius joined to him as colleague; and the copyists, sometimes passing over his name, expressed the two names of the one Volusian as though of two consuls, and substituted Rufinus for Rufius. This explanation of ours is illustrated and confirmed by: 1st, the little index of the prefects of the City in Bucher, p. 238, in which at the year 310 we read: “On the V day before the Kalends of November, Rufius Volusianus, P. U.” That is, prefect of the City: then there follows immediately at the year 311, “The consuls whom our lords the Augusti shall have ordered. From the month of September it was done to Rufinus and Eusebius”; 2nd, the fragment of the consular Fasti in the same Bucher, page 250, in which the year 311 is designated thus: “Maximian alone for the VIII time”; likewise the more complete Bucherian Fasti, page 42, which at the same year display, “Emperor Galerius Maximian VIII, Emperor Licinius Augustus,” otherwise “Rufinus and Eusebius”; and lastly what is recorded in the Idatian Fasti, “Maximian consul for the VIII time. In this consulship, that is, of Rufinus and Volusian, Maximian the younger died.” Therefore Miltiades, or Melchiades, must be said to have been ordained in the year 311, on the II day of July, which fell on a Monday, and to have been buried in the year 314, on the II day of January. But his death is recorded thus, on the tenth day of the same month, in the Bucherian little index of the depositions of the Roman pontiffs: “On the IV day before the Ides of January, of Miltiades, in Callistus’s.” It is noted on the same day in the Hieronymian Martyrology too, although in the same Martyrology at the II day of July there is read again: “The deposition of Pope Miltiades.” But here Papebroch thinks that the day of his ordination is commemorated, while Pagi thinks it is the translation of his relics, a solemnity of the kind which he asserts was quite often celebrated on the very anniversary, that is, ordination day, of the Roman pontiffs. Neither, therefore, is the fact that his memory is kept in the Roman Church on the X day of the month of December to be referred to the death of Melchiades, but to some other solemnity.

2. Hinc Bucherianum catalogum, in quo « Miltiades

2. Hence the Bucherian catalogue, in which “Miltiades

Editors' notes and page, col. 29

Page

running head: 29 DE LITTERIS MAXENTII MEL (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A ‹pauperes convivae sint episcoporum›; B ‹lias a consulatu Maximiano VIII solo›; C ‹311, « Consules, quos jusserint›; D ‹manorum pontificum indiculo ita consignatur›
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter set throughout: the end of the notes on the letters of Maxentius/Melchiades (pauperes convivae sint episcoporum...) and the start of the editors' account of St Melchiades (§ I. — Quando et quamdiu sederit). The full-width heading "SANCTUS MELCHI[ADES]" with its rules, printed across both columns between paragraph 6 and § I and cut off at the image edge, is not set. "fa-" at the end of paragraph 6 continues in the next column (fames) above the heading. The last word "Miltia-" is split at the column break. "illu⟨s⟩trant": the s is damaged in the type.
running head: 29 DE LITTERIS MAXENTII MELCHIADI DATIS. 30
marginal letters: A pauperes convivae sint (level with right column's mes, etc.); B lias a consulatu Maximiano (level with facilis sit librariorum); C 311, « Consules, quos jusserint (level with cundo, qui fuit); D manorum pontificum indiculo (level with jussit reddi)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: full-width page set in reading order: upper left, upper right (end of para 5 and para 6), title band, lower left; lower right is in c30. "fa-|mes" across the upper columns joined here as "fames". "Miltia-|des" split at the break into the lower right column set whole here as "Miltiades"; c30 begins with "annis III". "Januarii die II, sepultus": numeral read as II, UNSURE (the context suggests the 10th or 11th); set as seen. "c. 50" after Ivo read as 50, possibly 30. The quotation closing after "Maximianus junior. »" has no matching opening mark for the Idatian words as printed; the English extends the quotation accordingly. A note-call mark printed before SANCTUS MELCHIADES PAPA omitted. Small-capital numerals set as capitals.
misprints kept as printed (QA Q2): "qnod Ivo" (for quod; turned letter, upper right column, para 6); "diem ordinationem ejus" (for ordinationis). UNSURE: "quamvis in" may be printed "jn" (broken type); set as in.

PL 6:30

annis III, mensibus VI, diebus IX, » sedisse dicitur, ex subjectis in eodem catalogo consulibus corrigendum, et annis II, pro annis III restituendum esse liquet; simul et in notis numericis describendis quam facilis sit librariorum lapsus animadvertitur. Neque minus evidens est Eusebium, Hieronymum atque Prosperum in Chronicis, ubi tres pontificatus annos Melchiadi attribuunt, de duobus completis et uno inchoato loqui. Inde praeterea conficitur, ab Eusebii morte ad ordinationem Melchiadis non tantum « septem dies, » ut vulgatus Anastasius seu pontificalis liber habet, sed novem menses et aliquot dies Romanum episcopatum vacasse. Denique quod in vulgato pontificali libro de Melchiade legitur, ex Bucheriano catalogo aut similibus quam corrupte expressum sit, ex sola collatione manifestum fiet. Ita porro in illo libro exprimitur: « Melchiades natione Afer sedit annos III, menses VII, dies VIII, ex die Nonarum Julii consulatu Maximini IX, usque ad Maxentium secundo, qui fuit mense Septembri, Volusiano et Rufino consulibus. »

III years, VI months, IX days,” is said to have sat, must be corrected from the consuls set down beneath in the same catalogue, and it is clear that II years must be restored in place of III years; at the same time it is observed how easy a slip of copyists is in writing out numerals. Nor is it less evident that Eusebius, Jerome and Prosper in their Chronicles, where they attribute three years of pontificate to Melchiades, are speaking of two complete and one begun. From this it is further concluded that from the death of Eusebius to the ordination of Melchiades the Roman episcopate was vacant not merely “seven days,” as the common Anastasius or Pontifical Book has it, but nine months and some days. Finally, how corruptly what is read about Melchiades in the common Pontifical Book was expressed from the Bucherian catalogue or similar ones will become manifest from a comparison alone. For in that book it is expressed thus: “Melchiades, an African by nation, sat III years, VII months, VIII days, from the day of the Nones of July, in the IX consulship of Maximinus, until Maxentius for the second time, which was in the month of September, Volusian and Rufinus being consuls.”

§ II. — De litteris Maxentii imperatoris ac praefecti praetorio Melchiadi datis, quibus illi ecclesiis quae fuerant ablata, restitui jubebant.

§ II. — On the letters of the emperor Maxentius and of the praetorian prefect given to Melchiades, by which they ordered that what had been taken away from the churches be restored to them.

1. In collatione Carthaginensi, ut Augustinus tum in Breviculo collationis, III diei, c. 18, n. 34, tum in libro ad Donatistas, post collationem, cap. 13, memorat, recitata sunt gesta, « in quibus legebatur MELCHIADES misisse diaconos (Stratonem et Cassianum) cum litteris Maxentii imperatoris et litteris praefecti praetorio ad praefectum Urbis, ut ea reciperent, quae tempore persecutionis ablata memoratus imperator christianis jusserat reddi. » Ea autem quae Maxentius jussit reddi, mox Augustinus vocat loca ecclesiastica, hoc est cum ea in quibus ecclesiae erant constructae, et in quibus convenire solebant christiani, tum etiam ea quae ad ipsas ecclesias pertinuerant, uti disertis verbis Constantini et Licinii constitutio, apud Eusebium, lib. X Hist., c. 5, praecipit in hunc modum: « In gratiam Christianorum decernimus, ut loca ipsorum in quibus antehac convenire consueverant, de quibus in litteris prius ad devotionem tuam datis alia erat forma superiori tempore constituta, si qui aut a fisco nostro, aut alio quopiam ea emisse visi fuerint, ipsis christianis, absque ulla pecunia et sine repetitione ulla superadjecti pretii, incunctanter ac sine ulla

1. At the Conference of Carthage, as Augustine records both in the Summary of the Conference, on the III day, chapter 18, number 34, and in the book to the Donatists after the Conference, chapter 13, the acts were read out, “in which it was read that MELCHIADES had sent deacons (Strato and Cassian) with letters of the emperor Maxentius and letters of the praetorian prefect to the prefect of the City, that they might recover the things which, taken away in the time of persecution, the said emperor had ordered to be given back to the Christians.” Now the things which Maxentius ordered to be given back Augustine shortly calls ecclesiastical places, that is, both those in which churches had been built and in which the Christians used to assemble, and also those which had belonged to the churches themselves, as the constitution of Constantine and Licinius, in Eusebius, book X of the History, chapter 5, prescribes in express words in this manner: “In favour of the Christians we decree that their places in which they were formerly accustomed to assemble, concerning which a different rule had been laid down at an earlier time in the letters previously sent to your devotion, if any persons are found to have bought them either from our treasury or from anyone else, [be restored] to the Christians themselves without any money and without any demand for an added price, without delay and without any

Editors' notes and page, col. 30

Page

running head: [MELCHIADES PAPA. — DE LITTERIS] MAXENTII MELCHIADI DATIS. 30 (left part cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A mes, etc., » qnod Ivo; B facilis sit librariorum lapsus; C cundo, qui fuit mense Septembri; D jussit reddi, mox Augustinus
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter set: the whole column is editors' prose (end of the notes on Eusebius's decrees, ‹mes, etc., » qnod Ivo›; then the Melchiades dissertation, ‹des annis III›, and § II ‹De litteris Maxentii›). Column begins with word-fragments "mes" and "des" carried from column 29. Full-width title "MELCHIADES PAPA." (cut off at the left edge) stands between the top notes and "des annis III" and is not set. UNSURE: "die Nonarum" may be printed "dic" (e/c indistinct in scan); "III diei, c. 18" faint; "Maximini IX" set as printed. The column ends mid-sentence at "sine ulla".
running head: 29 DE LITTERIS MAXENTII MELCHIADI DATIS. 30
marginal letters: A mes, etc., » quod Ivo; B facilis sit librariorum; C cundo, qui fuit mense; D jussit reddi, mox Augustinus
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: this file holds the lower right column only (reading order of the full-width page; the upper right column is set in c29 before the title band). It begins with "annis III"; the preceding "Miltia-" joined as "Miltiades" at the end of c29. MELCHIADES printed in small capitals, set in capitals. The bracketed [be restored] supplies the main verb, which falls in the next column.

PL 6:31

ambage restituant. Quod si qui ea loca emerunt, aut donata acceperunt, aliquid a nostra clementia accipere velint, ii praefectum qui in illa provincia jus dicit adeant, ut a nostra serenitate ratio habeatur.» Hactenus de locis quae christianorum conventibus erant consecrata : tum de locis ad ipsas ecclesias pertinentibus subdit : « Et quoniam iidem christiani non solum ea loca, in quibus convenire solebant, sed etiam alia possedisse noscuntur, quae non privatim ad singulos ipsorum, sed ad jus corporis pertinerent; haec omnia post legem a nobis memoratam absque ulla dubitatione iisdem Christianis, hoc est cuilibet corpori et conventiculo ipsorum, restitui jubebis, supradicta scilicet ratione servata: ut qui ea loca absque redhibitione pretii, sicut dictum est, restituerint, indemnitatem suam a nostra benignitate exspectent.» Quapropter et ad Anulinum, Africae proconsulem, iidem imperatores, apud eumdem Eusebium, ibid., scribunt : « Operam dabis, ut sive horti, sive aedes, seu quodcumque aliud, ad jus earumdem ecclesiarum pertinuerit, cuncta illis quantocius restituantur : quo scilicet te huic nostro praecepto accuratissime obtemperasse intelligamus.

equivocation they are to restore. But if any have bought those places, or received them as a gift, and wish to receive something from our clemency, let them approach the prefect who administers justice in that province, so that account may be taken of them by our serenity." Thus far concerning the places which had been consecrated to the assemblies of the Christians; then, concerning the places belonging to the churches themselves, he adds: "And since the same Christians are known to have possessed not only those places in which they were accustomed to assemble, but also others, which belonged not privately to individuals among them but to the right of the corporate body; all these, following the law mentioned by us, you will order to be restored without any hesitation to the same Christians, that is, to each body and assembly of theirs, the aforesaid principle, namely, being observed: that those who have restored those places without repayment of the price, as has been said, may expect their indemnification from our benevolence." Wherefore the same emperors also write to Anulinus, proconsul of Africa, in the same Eusebius, in the same place: "You will take care that, whether gardens, or houses, or whatever else has belonged to the right of the same churches, all be restored to them as quickly as possible: so that, namely, we may understand that you have obeyed this our command most carefully.

2. Maxentii litterae, ad quas obtinendas Melchiadem operam suam contulisse valde probabile est, anno Christi 311 indultae sunt. Has exceperunt duae Licinii et Constantini imperatorum de eadem re constitutiones : prima, quae excidit, anno 312 labente, post ipsius Maxentii necem, promulgata; altera, quam nobis asservavit Eusebius, et ex qua nonnihil supra decerpsimus, Mediolani, circa initium anni 313, conscripta. Tandem eo ipso anno 313 Maximinus, cum a Licinio devictus fuisset, praedictorum imperatorum erga Ecclesiam benevolentiae morem gerens, istud pariter edixit : « Ut indulgentia nostra prolixior appareat, illud etiam sancire volumus, ut si quae domus aut

2. The letter of Maxentius, towards obtaining which it is very probable that Melchiades contributed his efforts, was granted in the year of Christ 311. It was followed by two constitutions of the emperors Licinius and Constantine on the same matter: the first, which has been lost, promulgated as the year 312 was drawing to its close, after the death of Maxentius himself; the other, which Eusebius has preserved for us, and from which we excerpted something above, drawn up at Milan about the beginning of the year 313. At length, in that very year 313, Maximinus, when he had been defeated by Licinius, complying with the benevolence of the aforesaid emperors towards the Church, likewise decreed this: "That our indulgence may appear more ample, we also wish to ordain this, that if any houses or

EXEMPLUM EPISTOLAE.

Copy of the Letter.

CONSTANTINI IMPERATORIS, QUA EPISCOPORUM CONCILIUM ROMAE FIERI JUBET PRO UNITATE ET CONCORDIA ECCLESIARUM.

Of the Emperor Constantine, by which he orders a council of bishops to be held at Rome for the unity and concord of the churches.

Constantinus Augustus Miltiadi episcopo urbis Romae et Marco.

Constantine Augustus to Miltiades, bishop of the city of Rome, and to Mark

4. Quoniam hujusmodi plures libelli a viro clarissimo Anulino, Africae proconsule, ad me sunt missi, in quibus continetur Caecilianum, Carthaginensis urloca

4. Since several petitions of this kind have been sent to me by the most illustrious Anulinus, proconsul of Africa, in which it is stated that Caecilian, [bishop] of the city of Carthage,

Editors' notes and page, col. 31

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: urbis Romæ et Marco› · call in col 31

(printed under page 19) (1) Quisnam sit ille Marcus, inter eruditos minime constat. Baronius, ad annum 313, n. 33, græcum Eusebii textum depravatum esse conjectat, et καὶ Μάρκῳ pro ἱεραρχῇ, hoc est, Romano hierarchæ, irrepsisse arbitratur. Sed si hoc vocabulo usus esset Constantinus, antea episcopi voce abstinuisset. Nec magis placet altera Perronii conjectura, qua καιρὸν μακρόν, hoc est, longam vitam, præferendum censet. Ista enim precatio non in litterarum fronte præmitti, sed ad calcem subjici solet, ubi reipsa a Constantino ponitur. Valesius existimat hic notari presbyterum Ecclesiæ Romanæ, quem una cum Miltiade huic synodo interesse voluit Constantinus, eum videlicet Marcum, qui post Silvestrum papam episcopatum urbis Romæ gessit. Alii, licet Baronii Perroniique conjecturas non probent, ultro tamen iis in nomine Marci mendum esse largiuntur. Certe Optatus, cum omnium qui Romano in concilio consederunt nomina commemoret, nullius tamen Marci meminit. Nec facile quis sibi persuaserit eum cui uni nominatim cum Melchiade Constantini de habendo concilio epistola inscripta fuerit, huic concilio non interfuisse; aut si inter- (continues)

(1) Who that Mark is, is by no means agreed among the learned. Baronius, at the year 313, n. 33, conjectures that Eusebius's Greek text is corrupt, and thinks that "καὶ Μάρκῳ" ("and to Mark") crept in for "ἱεραρχῇ," that is, "to the Roman hierarch." But if Constantine had used this word, he would have refrained from the word "bishop" just before. Nor is Perron's other conjecture more pleasing, by which he thinks "καιρὸν μακρόν," that is, "long life," should be preferred. For that prayer is customarily set not at the head of a letter but at its foot, where in fact Constantine puts it. Valesius thinks that a presbyter of the Roman Church is meant here, whom Constantine wished to take part in this synod together with Miltiades: namely that Mark who after Pope Silvester held the bishopric of the city of Rome. Others, though they do not approve the conjectures of Baronius and Perron, readily grant them that there is an error in the name of Mark. Certainly Optatus, though he records the names of all who sat in the Roman council, makes no mention of any Mark. Nor would anyone easily persuade himself that the one man to whom, by name, together with Melchiades, Constantine's letter about holding the council was addressed did not take part in this council; or, if he took part- (continues)

(printed under page 19)

Page

running head: 31 EPISTOLA CONSTANTINI AD (cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: A ‹ambage restituant. Quod si qui›; B ‹tatem suam a nostra benignitate exspectent›; C ‹asservavit Eusebius, et ex qua nonnihil›; D ‹in quibus continetur Caecilianum, Carthaginensis›
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 6:32

ad jus Christianorum antehac pertinentia ex jussione divorum parentum nostrorum ad jus fisci devoluta sint, aut ab aliqua civitate occupata, aut certe vendita, aut alicui dono data, cuncta ad pristinum jus ac dominium christianorum revocentur, ut hac etiam in re pietatem ac providentiam nostram cuncti possint agnoscere » (Euseb., lib. IX, cap. 10). Quin potius a cunctis agnoscatur ac suspiciatur singularis erga Ecclesiam Providentia Dei, qui cum eam ubique infestissimi imperatores saevissimo bello persequi, et in certum ejus exitium conspirare viderentur, prorsus insperatam ei pacem subito reddidit. Verum hanc continuo interturbavit pertinax et obstinatum schisma Donatistarum, quorum causam Constantinus, ab ipsis interpellatus, Melchiadi demandavit.

places which formerly belonged to the right of the Christians, if by order of our deified parents they have passed to the right of the treasury, or have been occupied by some city, or indeed sold, or given to someone as a gift, shall all be restored to the former right and ownership of the Christians, so that in this matter too all may be able to recognize our piety and providence" (Eusebius, book 9, chapter 10). Rather, let the singular Providence of God towards the Church be recognized and looked up to by all, Who, when everywhere the most hostile emperors seemed to be persecuting her with the most savage war and to be conspiring for her certain destruction, suddenly restored to her an altogether unhoped-for peace. But this peace was at once disturbed by the stubborn and obstinate schism of the Donatists, whose case Constantine, being petitioned by them, entrusted to Melchiades.

§ III. — Donatistarum causa Melchiadis cognitioni a Constantino imperatore demandatur.

§ III. — The case of the Donatists is entrusted by the emperor Constantine to the judicial examination of Melchiades.

3. Caecilianum Ecclesiae Carthaginensi praeesse ideo non posse contendebant Donatistae (August., Ep. 105, n. 8, olim 16), quia Felix Aptugnensis, quem librorum sacrorum traditorem fuisse calumniabantur, ipsum ordinasset. Quamobrem anno Christi 313 causam illius ad imperatorem Constantinum, precibus datis quas Optatus sub libri sui primi finem refert, detulerunt: « Sed quia, » ut Augustinus loquitur, « Constantinus non est ausus de causa episcopi judicare, eam discutiendam atque finiendam episcopis demandavit. Quod et factum est in urbe Roma, praesidente Melchiade, episcopo illius ecclesiae, cum multis collegis suis. » Ipsam epistolam qua Constantinus Melchiadi negotii hujus delegavit cognitionem, Eusebius e latino sermone in graecum conversam, Historiae suae inseruit. Hanc autem ut exhibeamus, nostrum institutum videtur postulare.

3. The Donatists contended that Caecilian could not preside over the Church of Carthage for this reason (Augustine, Letter 105, n. 8, formerly 16): that Felix of Aptunga, whom they falsely accused of having been a traditor of the sacred books, had ordained him. Therefore in the year of Christ 313 they brought his case before the emperor Constantine, by a petition submitted which Optatus reports towards the end of his first book: "But because," as Augustine says, "Constantine did not dare to judge concerning the case of a bishop, he entrusted it to bishops to be examined and settled. And this was done in the city of Rome, with Melchiades, bishop of that church, presiding, together with many of his colleagues." The very letter by which Constantine delegated to Melchiades the examination of this affair Eusebius, having turned it from the Latin language into Greek, inserted into his History. And our purpose seems to require that we present it.

ΑΝΤΙΓΡΑΦΟΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΙΚΗΣ

COPY OF THE IMPERIAL

ἐπιστολῆς δι' ἧς σύνοδον ἐπισκόπων ἐπὶ Ῥώμης κελεύει γενέσθαι ὑπὲρ τῆς τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν ἑνώσεώς τε καὶ ὁμονοίας.

letter, by which he orders a synod of bishops to be held at Rome for the union and concord of the churches.

Κωνσταντῖνος σεβαστὸς Μιλτιάδῃ ἐπισκόπῳ Ῥωμαίων καὶ Μάρκῳ.

Constantine Augustus to Miltiades, bishop of the Romans, and to Mark.

4. Ἐπειδὴ τοιοῦτοι χάρται παρὰ Ἀνυλίνου τοῦ λαμπροτάτου ἀνθυπάτου τῆς Ἀφρικῆς πρός με πλείους ἀπεστάλησαν, ἐν οἷς ἐμφέρεται, Καικιλιανὸν, τὸν ἐπίσκο-

4. Since several such documents have been sent to me by Anullinus, the most illustrious proconsul of Africa, in which it is stated that Caecilian, the bishop

Editors' notes and page, col. 32

Page

running head: [cut off at left] …NSTANTINI AD MELCHIADEM. 32
marginal letters: A ‹loca ad jus Christianorum›; B ‹blank line above § III. — Donatistarum›; C ‹davit. Quod et factum›; D ‹ἀπεστάλησαν, ἐν οἷς›
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter set (prolegomena on Constantine's letter to Melchiades: ‹loca ad jus Christianorum›, § III ‹Donatistarum causa›, and the Greek letter heading ‹ΑΝΤΙΓΡΑΦΟΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΙΚΗΣ›); "Aptugnensis" set as printed (usual form Aptungensis), UNSURE whether a misprint; damaged type read as causam, quas, detulerunt, suae; last word ἐπίσκο- split at column break; the left-hand text cut off at the image edge belongs to column 31 and is not set; the smaller-type notes at the page foot (‹Ecclesiae Romanae, quem una cum Miltiade›) are not set

PL 6:33

bis episcopum, a quibusdam collegis suis per Africam constitutis, multis de rebus insimulari; ac mihi permolestum videtur, in iis provinciis, quas divina providentia meae devotioni mera liberalitate tradidit, et in quibus maxima est populi multitudo, plebem quasi in duas partes divisam ad deteriora deflectere, et episcopos inter se dissentire: Placuit mihi, ut ipse Caecilianus cum decem episcopis qui accusare illum videntur, ac decem aliis, quos ipse ad causam suam necessarios esse judicaverit, Romam naviget; ut ibi coram vobis, necnon Reticio, Materno et Marino collegis vestris, quos hujus rei causa Romam properare praecepi, possit audiri, quemadmodum sanctissimae legi convenire optime nostis. Porro ut de omnibus his plenissimam valeatis habere notitiam, exempla libellorum ad me ab Anulino missorum litteris meis subjecta, ad supradictos collegas vestros transmisi. Quibus lectis perpendet gravitas vestra, quonam modo praedicta controversia accuratissime dijudicanda sit, et ex praescripto justitiae terminanda. Siquidem nec vestram sedulitatem latet tantam a me reverentiam sanctissimae Ecclesiae catholicae exhiberi, ut nullum omnino schisma vel discidium ullo in loco a vobis relinqui velim. Divinitas summi Dei multis annis vos servet, charissime.

of the city, is being charged on many counts by certain of his colleagues established throughout Africa; and it seems to me very grievous that in those provinces which divine providence has entrusted to my devotion out of pure generosity, and in which there is a very great multitude of people, the populace, as though divided into two parties, is turning aside to worse things, and the bishops are at variance among themselves. It has pleased me that Caecilian himself, with ten of the bishops who appear to accuse him, and ten others whom he himself judges necessary to his case, should sail to Rome, so that there, in the presence of you and also of Reticius, Maternus and Marinus, your colleagues, whom I have ordered to hasten to Rome for this purpose, he may be heard, in the manner which you know best befits the most holy law. Further, so that you may be able to have the fullest knowledge of all these matters, I have sent to your aforementioned colleagues copies of the documents sent to me by Anulinus, attached to my letter. When these have been read, your Gravity will weigh in what way the aforesaid controversy is to be most carefully judged and brought to an end according to the prescription of justice. For indeed it does not escape your diligence that so great a reverence is shown by me to the most holy Catholic Church that I would wish no schism or division whatever to be left by you in any place. May the Divinity of the highest God preserve you for many years, most dear one.

§ IV. — Melchiadis sententia de Caeciliani causa.

§ IV. — The sentence of Melchiades on the case of Caecilian.

5. Eodem anno 313, Octobris secundo die, qui in sextam feriam incidebat, in domum Faustae, Constantini uxoris, in Laterano convenerunt et consederunt judices: Miltiades, episcopus urbis Romae; Maternus Agrippinae civitatis, Reticius Augustodunensis, Marinus Arelatensis, Merocles Medionalensis, aliique quatuordecim episcopi Itali, quorum et nomina et sedes Optatus recenset. « His decem et novem considentibus episcopis, » inquit idem Optatus, « causa Donati et Caeciliani in medium missa est a singulis. In Donatum (A Casis Nigris, ut liquet ex Augustino brevic. Coll. diei III, n. 36, et lib. ad Donat. post Coll. n. 17) sunt hae sententiae latae: Quod confessus sit se rebaptizasse, et episcopis lapsis manum imposuisse; quod ab Ecclesia alienum est. Testes inducti a Donato confessi sunt se non habere quod in Caecilianum dicerent. » Caecilianus omnium supra memoratorum

5. In the same year 313, on the second day of October, which fell on the sixth feria, the judges came together and took their seats in the house of Fausta, wife of Constantine, at the Lateran: Miltiades, bishop of the city of Rome; Maternus of the city of Agrippina, Reticius of Autun, Marinus of Arles, Merocles of Milan, and fourteen other Italian bishops, whose names and sees Optatus lists. "These nineteen bishops being seated together," says the same Optatus, "the case of Donatus and Caecilian was laid open by each party. Against Donatus (of Casae Nigrae, as is clear from Augustine, Breviculus of the Conference, third day, n. 36, and the book to the Donatists after the Conference, n. 17) these sentences were passed: that he had confessed that he had rebaptized, and had laid hands on lapsed bishops, which is foreign to the Church. The witnesses brought in by Donatus confessed that they had nothing to say against Caecilian." Caecilian, of all those mentioned above

Editors' notes and page, col. 33

Footnotes

(1, prev. page) ‹anchor: et Marco› · note in cols 33–34

(continued) fuerit, ab Optato silendum esse. Quocirca Merocli, qui Mediolanensis tunc episcopus erat, pro Marco eo probabilius mallent, quod Constantinus, eo ipso anno Mediolani versatus, probatam ac perspectam habere potuerit Meroclis æquitatem. Inde tamen moveri quispiam potest, quod in eadem inscriptione, in qua denominatur Miltiades Romanæ urbis episcopus, alterius, qui ei adjungitur, dignitas taceatur. Præterea verbum τιμιώτατε, charissime, quo epistola clauditur, indicio esse posset, epistolam hanc Miltiadi uni, non duobus scriptam esse, nisi et eadem scribendi ratio frequens occurreret in ipsis Romanorum præsulum litteris, quæ pluribus a pari inscriptæ sunt. Jam vero eruditorum de hoc loco conjecturas, et argumenta quæ ipsis vel adversentur vel faveant, exposui : nunc seligat quisque quod sibi magis arridet. Rei veritatem nos certius docuisset collationis Carthaginensis tertia pars, cap. 319, cui hæc ipsa epistola inserta erat, nisi hæc portio excidisset.

(printed under page 20)

(1) ‹anchor: Materno et Marino (1) collegis› · note in col 34

(printed under page 20) (1) Episcopos illos Gallos cum Romano convenire præcepit Constantinus, morem gerens huic Donatistarum petitioni, in qua legere est : Petimus ut de Galliis nobis judices dari præcipiat pietas tua; quia, inquiunt, ab hoc facinore et dissensione immunis est Gallia.

(1) Constantine ordered those Gallic bishops to meet with the Roman one, complying with this petition of the Donatists, in which one reads: "We ask that your Piety order judges to be given us from the Gauls"; because, they say, "Gaul is free of this crime" and dissension.

(printed under page 20)

(2) ‹anchor: exempla libellorum (2) ad me› · note in col 34

(printed under page 20) (2) Precum seu libellorum partem postremam Optatus circa finem lib. I exscripsit. Cætera desiderantur.

(2) Optatus copied out the last part of the petitions, or memorials, near the end of book I. The rest is lost.

(printed under page 20)

Page

running head: 33 MELCHIADIS DE CÆCILIANI CAU… (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A bis episcopum, a quibusdam collegis; B exempla libellorum (2) ad me; C sextam feriam incidebat; D dicerent. » Caecilianus omnium
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: misprints kept as printed: "Medionalensis" (for Mediolanensis), §5 (Q3).

PL 6:34

που τῆς Καρταγεννησίων πόλεως, παρά τινων κολλήγων αὐτοῦ τῶν κατὰ τὴν Ἀφρικὴν κατεστώτων ἐν πολλοῖς πράγμασιν εὐθύνεσθαι·] καὶ τοῦτό μοι βαρὺ σφόδρα δοκεῖ, τὸ ἐν ταύταις ταῖς ἐπαρχίαις, ἃς τῇ ἐμῇ καθοσιώσει αὐθαίρετος ἡ θεία πρόνοια ἐνεχείρισε, κἀκεῖσε πολὺ πλῆθος λαοῦ, ὄχλον ἐπὶ τὸ φαυλότερον ἐπιμένοντα εὑρίσκεσθαι ὡσανεὶ διχοστατοῦντα, καὶ μεταξὺ ἐπισκόπους διαφορὰς ἔχειν· ἔδοξέ μοι ἵν' αὐτὸς ὁ Καικιλιανὸς μετὰ δέκα ἐπισκόπων τῶν αὐτὸν εὐθύνειν δοκούντων, καὶ δέκα ἑτέρων οὓς αὐτὸς τῇ ἑαυτοῦ δίκῃ ἀναγκαίους ὑπολάβοι, εἰς τὴν Ῥωμὴν πλῷ ἀπιέναι· ἵν' ἐκεῖσε ὑμῶν παρόντων, ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ Ῥετικίου, καὶ Ματέρνου καὶ Μαρίνου τῶν κολλήγων ὑμῶν, οὓς τούτου ἕνεκεν εἰς τὴν Ῥώμην προσέταξα ἐπισπεῦσαι, δυνηθῇ ἀκουσθῆναι, ὡς ἂν καταμάθοιτε τῷ σεβασμιωτάτῳ νόμῳ ἁρμόττειν. ἵνα μέντοι καὶ περὶ πάντων αὐτῶν τούτων πληρεστάτην δυνηθῆτε ἔχειν γνῶσιν, τὰ ἀντίτυπα τῶν ἐγγράφων τῶν πρός με παρὰ Ἀνυλίνου ἀποσταλέντων γράμμασιν ἐμοῖς ὑποτάξας πρὸς τοὺς προειρημένους κόλληγας ὑμῶν ἐξέπεμψα· οἷς ἐντυχοῦσα ἡ ὑμετέρα στεῤῥότης δοκιμάσει ὅν τινα χρὴ τρόπον τὴν προειρημένην δίκην ἐπιμελέστατα διευκρινῆσαι, καὶ κατὰ τὸ δίκαιον τερματίσαι. Ὁπότε μηδὲ τὴν ὑμετέραν ἐπιμέλειαν λανθάνει, τοσαύτην με αἰδῶ τῇ ἐν θεσμῷ (sic) καθολικῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ ἀπονέμειν, ὡς μηδὲν καθόλου σχίσμα ἢ διχοστασίαν ἔν τινι τόπῳ βούλεσθαί με ὑμᾶς καταλιπεῖν. Ἡ θειότης ὑμᾶς τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ διαφυλάξοι πολλοῖς ἔτεσι, τιμιώτατε.

[bisho]p of the city of the Carthaginians, is being called to account on many matters by certain of his colleagues established in Africa;] and this seems to me very grievous, that in these provinces, which divine providence has of its own accord entrusted to my devotion, there too a great multitude of the people, a crowd persisting in the worse course, should be found as it were divided into factions, and that the bishops should have differences among themselves. It seemed good to me that Caecilian himself, with ten of the bishops who appear to be calling him to account, and ten others whom he himself might judge necessary to his case, should go by sea to Rome, so that there, in the presence of yourselves, and moreover of Reticius and Maternus and Marinus, your colleagues, whom I have ordered to hasten to Rome for this purpose, he may be heard, as you may perceive to accord with the most venerable law. But in order that you may be able to have the fullest knowledge of all these very matters, I have sent copies of the documents dispatched to me by Anulinus, appending them to my letter to your aforesaid colleagues; on reading which Your Firmness will judge in what manner the aforesaid case ought most carefully to be examined and brought to an end in accordance with justice. Since it does not escape even your diligence that I pay such reverence to the lawful (sic) Catholic Church that I wish you to leave no schism or division whatever in any place. May the divinity of the great God preserve you for many years, most honoured one.

Editors' notes and page, col. 34

Page

running head: CÆCILIANI CAUSA SENTENTIA. 34 (start of head cut off at the left edge of the image)
marginal letters: A που τῆς Καρταγεννησίων; B μέντοι καὶ περὶ πάντων; C constiterit Caecilianum ab iis (in the page-foot notes); D etiam iis, quos a Majorino (in the page-foot notes)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column begins with "που", the end of a word (ἐπισκόπου) broken from col. 33; the Greek text of Constantine's letter to Miltiades (cf. Eusebius, HE 10.5), with its Latin version in the facing column 33. The "]" after εὐθύνεσθαι· is printed and presumably closes a bracket opened in col. 33. "(sic)" is printed in the text. Not set: the page-foot editorial notes below the rule ("sententiis innocens est pronuntiatus...", continuing a note from col. 33, and notes (1) "Episcopos illos Gallos..." and (2) "Precum seu libellorum..."), held for the later apparatus pass. Not set: the scanner's watermark "Digitized by Google / Распознавание текста АБК/FR".

PL 6:35

dissensio geminasset, eum confirmari vellet, qui fuisset ordinatus prior, alteri autem eorum plebs alia regenda provideretur! O virum optimum! o filium christianae pacis et patrem christianae plebis!... Hic nec mansuetudo integritatem corrupit, nec integritas mansuetudini repugnavit. »

had doubled through dissension, he wished that one to be confirmed who had been ordained first, while another people should be provided for the other of them to govern! O best of men! O son of Christian peace and father of the Christian people!... Here neither did gentleness corrupt integrity, nor did integrity resist gentleness."

6. Et in hac quidem sententia triplex suspicere est providi pastoris temperamentum, quod deinceps Ecclesiae similibus in causis magno usui fuit: primum, quod totius mali principem Donatum damnare contentus, caeteris ejus consortibus liberam resipiscendi facultatem reliquit. Alterum, quod etiam a Majorino, qui Carthaginensi ecclesiae in Caeciliani locum a schismaticis praefectus fuerat, ordinatos ad communionem suam admittere non recusavit. Postremum, quod in his ecclesiis, in quibus duo essent praesules, unus a Majorino, alter a Catholicis ordinatus, ei qui prior erat ordinatus ecclesiam ipsam, quam regebat, sic adjudicavit, ut et alteri plebem aliam regendam provideri simul juberet.

6. And in this sentence indeed one may admire a threefold moderation of a provident pastor, which was afterwards of great use to the Church in similar cases: first, that, content to condemn Donatus, the author of the whole evil, he left to the rest of his associates a free opportunity of coming to their senses. The second, that he did not refuse to admit to his communion those ordained even by Majorinus, who had been set over the church of Carthage by the schismatics in the place of Caecilian. The last, that in those churches in which there were two prelates, one ordained by Majorinus, the other by the Catholics, he so adjudged the church itself, which he was governing, to the one who had been ordained first, that he at the same time ordered another people to be provided for the other to govern.

7. Primum ex his temperamentis secutus Hilarius Pictavensis episcopus se cum Gallicanis episcopis a Saturnini et Ursacii et Valentis, qui Arianorum in Occidente duces erant, communione separavit, « Indulta caeteris consortibus eorum resipiscendi facultate; ut nec pacis abesset voluntas, et principalium morborum foetida et in corruptionem totius corporis membra proficientia desecarentur. » Idque postea regulae instar in Ecclesia constanter obtinuit.

7. Following the first of these moderations, Hilary, bishop of Poitiers, together with the bishops of Gaul, separated himself from the communion of Saturninus and Ursacius and Valens, who were the leaders of the Arians in the West, "the opportunity of coming to their senses being granted to the rest of their associates; so that neither should the will for peace be lacking, and the fetid members of the chief diseases, advancing to the corruption of the whole body, should be cut off." And this afterwards constantly prevailed in the Church after the manner of a rule.

8. Alteri morem gesserunt non solum Africani catholici erga Donatistas ad unitatem redeuntes, sed et longe postea Felix II, papa, ut ecclesiarum ob Acacii causam scissarum redintegrationem expeditiorem facilioremque redderet, « nobis, » inquit epist. 12, ad Flavitam, n. 4, « Deo inspirante provisuris rationabiliter... ut eorum quos ordinavit vel baptizavit Acacius, salva confessione catholica, pro charitatis Ecclesiae redintegratione nihil pereat. » Quod quidem illaesa fide indulgeri posse Afri catholici in epistola, quae collationis Carthaginensis cognitioni 1, cap. 16, inserta est, hac ratione probant: « Neque enim in eis divinae sacramenta veritatis, sed commenta humani detestamur erroris; quibus sublatis, fraternum pectus amplectimur Christiana nobis charitate conjunctum. » Eamdem rationem pluribus explicat et illustrat Anastasius II, papa, scribens ad Anastasium imp., n. 8. Ubi in antecessum praemonemus, quam frustra idem Anastasius papa apud Hincmarum, tom. II, pag. 278, sacris canonibus et decretis decessorum non convenire atque concordare idcirco dicatur, quod ordinatos ab Acacio damnato in suis ordinibus recipere non detrectaret: cum illum ea in re, et decessorum suorum Melchiadis ac Felicis, et Afrorum decretis obsecutum esse palam sit.

8. The second was complied with not only by the African Catholics towards the Donatists returning to unity, but also long afterwards by Felix II, pope, in order to make the reintegration of the churches split over the cause of Acacius speedier and easier: "We," he says in letter 12, to Flavitas, n. 4, "by God's inspiration, intending to provide reasonably... that, the Catholic confession being kept intact, none of those whom Acacius ordained or baptized should perish, for the sake of the reintegration of the charity of the Church." That this could indeed be granted with faith unimpaired the African Catholics prove by this reasoning, in the letter which is inserted in the first session of the Conference of Carthage, chapter 16: "For it is not the sacraments of divine truth in them, but the inventions of human error that we detest; and when these are removed, we embrace a brotherly heart joined to us by Christian charity." The same reasoning is set out and illustrated at greater length by Anastasius II, pope, writing to the emperor Anastasius, n. 8. Here we give warning in advance how groundlessly the same Pope Anastasius is said in Hincmar, vol. II, p. 278, not to agree and accord with the sacred canons and the decrees of his predecessors, on the ground that he did not refuse to receive in their orders those ordained by the condemned Acacius: since it is plain that in this matter he followed the decrees both of his predecessors Melchiades and Felix and of the Africans.

9. Tertium imitati sunt Africani episcopi, per epistolam, quae collationis Carthag. cognit. 1, cap. 16, inserta est, quaeque apud Augustinum exstat epist. 128, Donatistis pollicentes, eos a se, si convicti ad

9. The third was imitated by the African bishops, through the letter which is inserted in the first session of the Conference of Carthage, chapter 16, and which survives among Augustine's works as letter 128, promising the Donatists that, if, convinced, they should return to

Editors' notes and page, col. 35

Page

running head: 35 MELCHIADIS DE CAECILIANI CAU[...] (cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: A dissensio geminasset; B quod in his ecclesiis; C tholici erga Donatistas; D explicat et illustrat Anastasius II
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: whole column is editors' prose (dissertation on Melchiades and the cause of Caecilian, sections 6-9, beginning mid-quotation "dissensio geminasset"); content does not appear to be Lactantius, so check the volume/column label (PL 6 vs PL 8). UNSURE: "detrectaret" (blurred bold type, could read "detrectarot"); "Hincmarum" (initial H badly printed, looks like "llinc-"); "Melchiadis" in para 8 blurred; "suspicere" kept as printed. Column ends mid-sentence at "ad"; "[be received]" in last English line is a supplement.

PL 6:36

unitatem redierint, sic recipiendos esse, « ut non solum viam salutis inveniant, sed nec honorem episcopatus amittant. Poterit quippe, inquiunt, unusquisque nostrum, honoris sibi socio copulato, vicissim sedere eminentius, sicut peregrino episcopo juxta considente collega. Hoc cum alternis basilicis utrisque conceditur, uterque ab alterutro, mutuo honore praevenitur: quia ubi praeceptio charitatis dilataverit corda, possessio pacis non fit angusta; ut uno eorum defuncto deinceps jam singulis singuli pristino more succedant. Nec novum aliquid fiet: nam hoc ab ipsius separationis exordio, in eis qui damnato nefariae discissionis errore unitatis dulcedinem vel sero sapuerunt, catholica dilectio custodivit. »

unity, they are to be received by them in this way, 'that they may not only find the way of salvation, but also not lose the honour of the episcopate. For each one of us, they say, with a partner in honour joined to him, will be able to sit by turns in the more eminent place, just as a colleague sits beside a visiting bishop. When this is granted to both in alternate basilicas, each is anticipated by the other with mutual honour: for where the precept of charity has enlarged hearts, the possession of peace does not become narrow; so that, when one of them has died, thereafter single [bishops] may succeed single [bishops] according to the former custom. Nor will anything new be done: for from the very beginning of the separation Catholic love has kept this in the case of those who, having condemned the error of the wicked division, have tasted the sweetness of unity, even if late.'

10. Istud porro de duobus episcopis in una ecclesia simul relinquendis consilium primum Arelatensis synodi charitate inventum atque auctoritate fultum Tillemontius, tom. VI, pag. 49, existimat. Nec aliam affert opinionis suae rationem, nisi quod Romano in concilio aliud circa eosdem episcopos a Melchiade et sociis decretum fuit. Verum cum horum sententia neque ab Optato, neque ab Augustino, neque ab ullo alio integra transmissa fuerit, affirmari certo nequit, illud alterum, quod Afri « ab ipsius separationis exordio » apud se custoditum esse testantur, in illa sententia minime fuisse propositum. Potuit enim fieri, ut Romana synodus, cui Melchiades praeerat, non unam in ecclesiis, in quibus duo essent episcopi, componendae pacis viam panderet. Hoc certe ab iisdem Afris factum legimus, qui cum unius ecclesiae curam duobus episcopis simul permittendam proposuissent, hoc alterum de duobus amovendis statim subjiciunt: « Aut si forte Christiani populi singulis delectantur episcopis, et duorum consortium, inusitata rerum facie, tolerare non possunt: utrique de medio secedamus, et ecclesiis, in singulis damnata schismatis causa, in unitate pacifica constitutis, ab his qui singuli in ecclesiis singulis invenientur, unitati factae per loca necessaria constituantur episcopi. » Quae verba Augustinus in Breviculo, coll. primae diei, cap. 5, sic summatim reddit, pactum esse a catholicis docens, ut « si plebes duos in una ecclesia episcopos ferre non possent, utrisque de medio recedentibus, singuli constituerentur episcopi, ab eis episcopis ordinandi, qui in suis plebibus singuli invenirentur. » Et iis quidem novi hujus temperamenti ante Arelatensem synodum, si rem ex ordine narrat Optatus, jam praeluxerat exemplum: cum Carthaginem missi sint Eunomius et Olympius, qui duobus inde amotis, unum ordinarent.

10. Now Tillemont, vol. 6, p. 49, considers that this plan of leaving two bishops together in one church was first devised by the charity of the synod of Arles and supported by its authority. Nor does he offer any other reason for his opinion, except that something different was decreed concerning the same bishops by Melchiades and his associates in the Roman council. But since their sentence has been transmitted entire neither by Optatus, nor by Augustine, nor by anyone else, it cannot be affirmed with certainty that the other arrangement, which the Africans testify was kept among them 'from the very beginning of the separation', was not at all proposed in that sentence. For it could have happened that the Roman synod, over which Melchiades presided, opened more than one way of making peace in the churches in which there were two bishops. This certainly we read was done by the same Africans, who, having proposed that the care of one church be entrusted to two bishops together, immediately add this other [way], concerning the removal of both: 'Or if perhaps the Christian peoples take delight in single bishops, and cannot tolerate the partnership of two, an unaccustomed appearance of things: let us both withdraw from the midst, and, the churches having been established in peaceful unity, the cause of the schism having been condemned in each, let single bishops be appointed, as needed, for the unity achieved in the various places, by those who will be found single in single churches.' These words Augustine in the Breviculus, on the conference of the first day, ch. 5, renders in summary thus, teaching that it had been agreed by the Catholics that 'if the congregations could not bear two bishops in one church, both withdrawing from the midst, single bishops should be appointed, to be ordained by those bishops who were found single in their own congregations.' And indeed, if Optatus narrates the matter in order, an example of this new compromise had already shone before them prior to the synod of Arles: when Eunomius and Olympius were sent to Carthage, in order that, the two being removed from there, they might ordain one.

11. Nempe Optatus verbis, quibus Melchiadis judicium clausum est, relatis proxime subjicit: « Sufficit ergo et Donatum tot sententiis percussum esse, et Caecilianum tanto judicio esse purgatum. Et tamen Donatus appellandum esse ab episcopis credidit. » Ubi si appellatio a Melchiadis sententia indicatur, ad eamdem attinere videtur, quod idem Optatus subnectit: « Ad quam appellationem Constantinus imperator sic respondit: O rabida furoris audacia! Sicut in

11. For Optatus, having quoted the words with which the judgement of Melchiades is closed, immediately adds: 'It is enough, therefore, both that Donatus has been struck by so many sentences, and that Caecilian has been cleared by so great a judgement. And yet Donatus believed that an appeal should be made from the bishops.' Here, if an appeal from the sentence of Melchiades is indicated, what the same Optatus subjoins seems to pertain to the same: 'To which appeal the emperor Constantine replied thus: O rabid audacity of madness! As in

Editors' notes and page, col. 36

Page

running head: [cut off at left] ...CÆCILIANI CAUSA SENTENTIA. 36
marginal letters: A ‹unitatem redierint›; B ‹sia simul relinquendis›; C ‹mus, qui cum unius›; D ‹plebibus singuli invenirentur›
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: whole column is editors' prolegomena (dissertation on Melchiades' sentence in the cause of Caecilian), set in full, beginning ‹unitatem redierint›; column begins mid-sentence; running head cut off at the left edge; scan shows letter-forms such as "Hoo", "Iloc", "mutue", "duloedinem", "Eunomlus", "episcopó" which look like poor reproduction rather than misprints, set as Hoc, Hoc, mutuo, dulcedinem, Eunomius, episcopo (UNSURE)

PL 6:37

causis Gentilium fieri assolet, appellationem interposuerunt. Eodem tempore idem Donatus petiit, ut ei reverti licuisset (ita ms. German.), nec ad Carthaginem accederet. Tunc a Filumino suffragatore suggestum est, ut bono pacis Caecilianus Brixiae retineretur: et factum est. Tunc duo episcopi ad Africam missi sunt, Eunomius et Olympius: ut remotis duobus unum ordinarent. Venerunt et apud Carthaginem: fuerunt per dies 40, ut pronuntiarent ubi esset catholica. Hoc seditiosa pars Donati fieri passa non est. De studio partium strepitus quotidiani sunt habiti. Novissima sententia eorumdem episcoporum Eunomii et Olympii talis legitur, ut dicerent illam esse catholicam, quae esset in toto orbe terrarum, et sententiam decem et novem episcoporum (hoc est Melchiadis et sociorum), jam dudum datam non posse dissolvi. » Sed appellationem ab Optato notari, quae Arelatense concilium excepit, et ad id, quod post idem concilium contigit, reliquam narrationem pertinere hinc plane nobis est persuasum: 1° quod superiora Constantini verba, « O rabida furoris audacia! Sicut in causis Gentilium, etc., » ex Imperatoris hujus epistola ad episcopos qui Arelate convenerant (apud Lab., tom. I Concil., pag. 1431, d. c.) descripta sint: deinde quod Augustinus, epist. 43, n. 20, Arelatensis concilii judicium et ab eo appellationem, necnon aequam Imperatoris indignationem hoc ordine perstringat: « Neque enim ausus est christianus imperator sic eorum tumultuosas et fallaces querelas suscipere, ut de judicio episcoporum, qui Romae sederant, ipse judicaret; sed alios, ut dixi, episcopos dedit, a quibus tamen illi ad ipsum rursum Imperatorem provocare maluerunt: qua in re illos quemadmodum detestetur audistis. » Postremo quod Optatus Melchiadis et sociorum adversus Donatum sententiam non ut recens, sed ut jam dudum prolatam commemoret. Sed et illud observatione dignum, ut cum post Arelatense concilium Eunomius et Olympius Carthaginem ad sedandos Donatistarum tumultus missi fuerint, nulla hujus concilii mentione facta, » sententiam decem et novem episcoporum (Melchiade praeside) jam dudum datam non posse dissolvi » pronuntiarint. Unde id, quod Carthagine gesserunt, non tam ex Arelatensis concilii, quam ex Melchiadis sententia gessisse merito videantur.

cases of the Gentiles is customarily done, they lodged an appeal. At the same time the same Donatus asked that he might be permitted to return (so the German ms.), and that he should not go to Carthage. Then it was suggested by Filuminus, a supporter, that for the good of peace Caecilianus should be kept at Brixia: and it was done. Then two bishops were sent to Africa, Eunomius and Olympius, so that, the two having been set aside, they might ordain one. They came also to Carthage; they were there for 40 days, in order to pronounce where the catholic [Church] was. The seditious party of Donatus did not allow this to be done. Out of partisan zeal there were daily uproars. The final sentence of the same bishops Eunomius and Olympius is read to have been this, that they declared that to be catholic which was in the whole world, and that the sentence of the nineteen bishops (that is, of Melchiades and his associates), given long since, could not be dissolved.' But that the appeal noted by Optatus is the one which followed the council of Arles, and that the remaining narrative relates to what happened after the same council, we are plainly persuaded from this: 1st, that the earlier words of Constantine, "O rabid audacity of madness! As in the cases of the Gentiles, etc.," are copied from this Emperor's letter to the bishops who had assembled at Arles (in Labbe, vol. 1 of the Councils, p. 1431, d. c.); next, that Augustine, Letter 43, n. 20, touches on the judgement of the council of Arles and the appeal from it, and also the just indignation of the Emperor, in this order: "For the Christian emperor did not dare to take up their tumultuous and deceitful complaints in such a way as himself to pass judgement on the judgement of the bishops who had sat at Rome; but he appointed, as I said, other bishops, from whom, however, they preferred to appeal once again to the Emperor himself; and you have heard how he detests them in this matter." Finally, that Optatus mentions the sentence of Melchiades and his associates against Donatus not as recent, but as delivered long since. But this too is worthy of remark, that when, after the council of Arles, Eunomius and Olympius had been sent to Carthage to quell the tumults of the Donatists, they pronounced, without any mention made of this council, that "the sentence of the nineteen bishops (Melchiades presiding), given long since, could not be dissolved." Hence what they did at Carthage they may rightly be seen to have done not so much on the strength of the sentence of the council of Arles as on that of Melchiades.

12. Uno verbo Melchiades ea sententia, quam laudat Augustinus, unitatis resarciendae viam praemonstravit: adeo ut diversos illos modos, quibus Afri catholici schismaticos sibi conciliare et ad concordiam revocare, sive in collatione, sive ante, tentarunt, spectare liceat veluti diversos aditus pacificae ejus viae, quam Melchiades illis aperuerat. Ipse clericis et episcopis a schismate recedentibus gradus et honores suos per indulgentiam servando, gravissimum restaurandae pacis removit impedimentum. Deinde vero Afri pacem hac via initam, variis modis, qui ab illa non recedebant, coagmentare, prout tempus exigebat, studuerunt. Qua de re vide et Codicem canonum eccl. Afric., c. 117 et 118.

12. In a word, Melchiades, by that sentence which Augustine praises, showed in advance the way to restore unity: so much so that those various methods by which the catholic Africans tried to win over the schismatics to themselves and recall them to concord, whether at the conference or before it, may be regarded as so many different approaches to that peaceful way which Melchiades had opened to them. He himself, by preserving through indulgence their ranks and honours to clerics and bishops withdrawing from the schism, removed the gravest obstacle to restoring peace. Then indeed the Africans strove to cement the peace entered upon by this way, by various means which did not depart from it, as the time required. On this matter see also the Code of the canons of the African Church, chs. 117 and 118.

Editors' notes and page, col. 37

Page

running head: 37 MELCHIADIS JUDICIUM DONATIS[...] (cut off at right edge of image)
marginal letters: A causis Gentilium fieri assolet; B Melchiadis et sociorum), jam dudum datam non posse; C qui Romae sederant, ipse judicaret; D 12. Uno verbo Melchiades ea sententia
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: prolegomena on the judgement of Melchiades against the Donatists, continuing from the previous column mid-quotation of Optatus ("causis Gentilium fieri assolet") through §12 ("Uno verbo Melchiades"); right-hand column partly visible in the images, not set; "Codicem" in last line blurred (looks like "Codieem"), read as Codicem; "tom. ı" set as tom. I; "d. c." in the Labbe reference set as printed, sense unsure; quotation marks « » and stray » set as printed

PL 6:38

13. Unum adhuc, unde disciplina ecclesiastica illustratur, circa sententiam Melchiadis ab Augustino superius laudatam, observandum restat: quod videlicet in quibuscumque locis duo essent episcopi, ita eum confirmari voluit qui fuisset prior ordinatus, ut tamen « alteri eorum plebs alia regenda committeretur. » Cui judicio in Carthaginensi collatione, cogn. I, cap. 16, congruentes Afri, ubi non unus tantum, sed et ambo episcopi, postulante populo, removendi sunt, singulis singulas ecclesias tribuendas esse decernunt. Ideo vero istud observatu dignum puto, quia effluxisse hinc videtur mos subinde usitatus, episcopos qui a propriis plebibus aut non admissi aut expulsi sunt, ad alias ecclesias transferendi. Inde sane nihil praeter antiquam disciplinam commisisse comprobantur, sive Leonis decessor Xystus III, epist. 8, cum Perigenem Patrensibus ordinatum episcopum, sed ab his recusatum, Corinthiis praeficiendum curavit; sive ejusdem Leonis successor Hilarius, ubi Hermen, qui se a Biterrensibus exclusum dicebat, Narbonensibus praeesse permisit (Hilar., ep. 8), seu Joannes III, cum Joanni Alexandrino episcopo e propria civitate expulso Nolanam ecclesiam regendam tradidit (Liberat., c. 18). Ea ipsa ratione excusatur quoque migratio Aprunculi, qui, uti Gregorius Turonensis, lib. II de Gestis Francorum, c. †23, et Baronius, ad annum 484, referunt, « Lingonicae civitatis episcopus, apud Burgundiones coepit haberi suspectus: cumque odium de die in diem cresceret, jussum est ut clam gladio feriretur. Quo ad eum perlato nuntio, nocte a castro Divionensi per murum demissus, Arvernos advenit, ibique juxta verbum Domini... undecimus datur episcopus. »

13. One thing more remains to be observed, by which ecclesiastical discipline is illustrated, concerning the sentence of Melchiades praised above by Augustine: namely, that in whatever places there were two bishops, he wished that the one who had been ordained first should be confirmed, but in such a way that « another people should be entrusted to the other of them to rule. » In agreement with this judgement, the Africans in the Conference of Carthage, session 1, chapter 16, decree that where not just one but both bishops are to be removed at the demand of the people, separate churches are to be assigned to each of them. And I think this worth observing for this reason, that from here seems to have flowed the custom, afterwards frequently practised, of transferring to other churches bishops who were either not admitted or driven out by their own peoples. Accordingly they are shown to have done nothing contrary to ancient discipline, whether Xystus III, the predecessor of Leo, epistle 8, when he saw to it that Perigenes, ordained bishop for the people of Patrae but rejected by them, should be set over the Corinthians; or Hilarius, the successor of the same Leo, when he permitted Hermes, who said he had been shut out by the people of Béziers, to preside over the people of Narbonne (Hilarius, epistle 8); or John III, when he handed over the church of Nola to be ruled by John, bishop of Alexandria, who had been expelled from his own city (Liberatus, ch. 18). By that same reasoning is also excused the migration of Aprunculus, who, as Gregory of Tours, book 2 of the Deeds of the Franks, ch. 23, and Baronius, at the year 484, relate, « being bishop of the city of Langres, began to be held under suspicion among the Burgundians; and as the hatred grew from day to day, it was ordered that he be secretly struck down with the sword. When word of this was brought to him, he was let down over the wall by night from the fort of Dijon, came to the Arverni, and there, according to the word of the Lord... is given as the eleventh bishop. »

§ V. — Melchiadis judicium Donatistae antiqui respuunt, eumque postmodum traditionis librorum recentiores falso accusant.

§ V. — The early Donatists reject the judgement of Melchiades, and the later ones afterwards falsely accuse him of the surrender of the books.

14. Quantumvis moderata fuerit Melchiadis sententia, Donatistis tamen non placuit. Hi quippe de episcoporum judicio, in quo victi fuerant, statim murmurare, atque precibus Constantino oblatis expostulare coeperunt. An haec eorum expostulatio appellationis nomine donanda sit, necne, inter eruditos disceptatur. Inter eos tamen convenit schismaticos illos Melchiadis judicio non stetisse, judices alios a Constantino flagitasse, idque ab illis inique fuisse postulatum. Obtendebant nimirum, paucos admodum episcopos sententiam tulisse, qui nec omnibus quae prius inquiri oportebat diligenter excussis, ad depromendum judicium properanter accessissent. Hanc unam rationem illi tunc praetexebant, ut Romanae synodi judicium detrectarent: nec aliam memorat Constantinus in ea epistola, qua plurimos ex diversis ac prope infinitis locis episcopos in urbem Arelatensem convenire ejusdem causae finiendae gratia praecipiebat (August., epist. 105, n. 8; Optat., lib. I; Constantinus, apud Euseb. l. X, c. 5). Ex quo colligitur Donatistis non solum ante concilium Romanum, sed et post, toto scilicet intervallo illo quod inter hoc

14. However moderate the sentence of Melchiades was, it nevertheless did not please the Donatists. For they at once began to murmur about the judgement of the bishops, in which they had been defeated, and to remonstrate by petitions presented to Constantine. Whether this remonstrance of theirs should be given the name of an appeal or not is disputed among the learned. Yet it is agreed among them that those schismatics did not abide by the judgement of Melchiades, that they demanded other judges from Constantine, and that this was unjustly requested by them. They alleged, namely, that very few bishops had passed sentence, who, without diligently examining all the things that ought first to have been inquired into, had proceeded hastily to delivering judgement. This one reason they then put forward as a pretext for disparaging the judgement of the Roman synod; nor does Constantine mention any other in the letter by which he ordered very many bishops from various and almost countless places to assemble in the city of Arles for the sake of ending the same case (Augustine, epistle 105, n. 8; Optatus, book 1; Constantine, in Eusebius, book 10, ch. 5). From which it is gathered that to the Donatists, not only before the Roman council but also after it, that is, during the whole interval between this

Editors' notes and page, col. 38

Page

running head: [cut off at left] CIUM DONATISTÆ RESPUUNT. | 38
marginal letters: A 13. Unum adhuc, unde disciplina; B comprobantur, sive Leonis decessor; C ad eum perlato nuntio; D Constantino flagitasse, idque
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: whole column is editors' prolegomena (‹13. Unum adhuc›; caption ‹§ V. — Melchiadis judicium›; ‹14. Quantumvis moderata›). Running head cut off at left edge, presumably MELCHIADIS JUDICIUM DONATISTÆ RESPUUNT. Left-hand column fragments belong to col. 37, not set. After "prior ordinatus," a stray mark (perhaps a damaged » or "ita") is printed before "ut tamen"; omitted. "c. †23": numeral blurred (could read 93/95). Type is heavily blurred throughout (e.g. Melchiadis, schismaticos, Baronius, colligitur read through damaged type). Column ends mid-sentence at "inter hoc".

PL 6:39

atque Arelatense concilium intercessit, minime venisse in mentem, ut Melchiadem crimine traditionis sacrorum librorum arguerent.

and the Council of Arles that came between, it by no means occurred to accuse Melchiades of the crime of handing over the sacred books.

15. Id vero postmodum commenti, non Melchiadem solum, sed etiam Marcellinum, Marcellum atque Silvestrum ejusdèm criminis postularunt. Ex quo et hanc calumniam ab eis ante Silvestri papae tempora excogitatam non fuisse haud temere suspicemur. Quamvis enim hoc nefas a Marcello, Melchiade, Silvestro, cum adhuc Marcellini presbyteri essent, perpetratum fuisse dixerint: nemo tamen non videt hoc eos, ut apostolicae sedi odium atque invidiam facerent, ejusque adversus se auctoritatem declinarent, excogitasse; adeoque et postquam Marcellus, Melchiades ac Silvester ejusdem sedis dignitate decorati jam fuissent.

15. But having later invented this, they accused not Melchiades alone but also Marcellinus, Marcellus and Silvester of the same crime. From this we may, not without reason, suspect that this calumny too was not devised by them before the times of Pope Silvester. For although they said that this wicked deed was committed by Marcellus, Melchiades and Silvester while they were still presbyters of Marcellinus, yet no one fails to see that they devised it in order to stir up hatred and ill will against the apostolic see and to evade its authority against themselves; and so [devised it] even after Marcellus, Melchiades and Silvester had already been adorned with the dignity of that same see.

16. Immo ex Augustini verbis in breviculo collationis cum Donatistis, cap. 18, intelligitur, Donatistas in collatione Carthaginensi primum id criminis Melchiadi imposuisse. « Cum enim eos compulisset Cognitor, » inquit Augustinus, « ut contra concilium judiciumque Melchiadis, quo Caecilianus purgatus atque absolutus legebatur, si haberent aliquid, dicerent; tunc Donatistae ipsum Melchiadem coeperunt traditionis arguere, et dicere majores suos propterea illius judicium refugisse. » Istud affirmantes mendacii convincere difficile admodum non erat: siquidem majores illorum Melchiadis judicio stare detrectantes, nihil umquam hujusmodi in precibus suis praetexuisse deprehenduntur. Verum quia rem non Cognitori solum, sed et ipsis Catholicis inauditam objiciebant; ideo « facto judice intento, utrumne de traditionis crimine aliquod judicium vel publicum vel ecclesiasticum proferretur, ipsisque Catholicis id ut probaretur exspectantibus et exigentibus, legerunt Donatistae gesta quaedam prolixissima apud praefectum, ubi nec praefectus ipse cujusmodi esset apparebat, nec locus legebatur ubi haec agebantur: sed gesta ipsa multos multa ecclesiastica tradentes longissima recitatione sonuerunt, ubi nomen Melchiadis omnino non sonuit. Quibus peractis, » miratus est « Cognitor aliud promissum, et aliud recitatum. » Exinde recitarunt alia gesta, in quibus Melchiades legebatur diaconos Stratonem et Cassianum misisse, ut loca Christianis tempore persecutionis ablata jussu imperatoris reciperent. « Et cum his quoque gestis nullum Melchiadis crimen et Cognitori et Catholicis defensoribus appareret, dixerunt Donatistae, Stratonem diaconum, quem cum aliis ad recipienda loca ecclesiastica miserat, superioribus gestis recitatum esse traditorem: et ideo volebant etiam Melchiadem crimine traditionis adspergere, quod diacono illo non degradato uteretur. » At rogati « utrum saltem in illis traditionis gestis esset expressum, quod Straton diaconus fuerit, » ne id quidem probare valuerunt. Respondebant praeterea catholici, etiamsi Straton [traditor diaconus appellatus] fuisset, non inde sequi, ut is fuerit quo postea Melchiades usus est: cum fieri potuerit, ut

16. Indeed, from the words of Augustine in the Breviculus of the Conference with the Donatists, chap. 18, it is understood that the Donatists first imputed this crime to Melchiades at the Conference of Carthage. "For when the Cognitor had compelled them," says Augustine, "to state, if they had anything, against the council and judgement of Melchiades, by which Caecilian was read to have been cleared and acquitted, then the Donatists began to accuse Melchiades himself of handing over, and to say that their forebears had shunned his judgement for that reason." To convict those asserting this of lying was not at all difficult, since their forebears, when they refused to abide by the judgement of Melchiades, are found never to have put forward anything of the kind as a pretext in their petitions. But because they were alleging a thing unheard of not only by the Cognitor but by the Catholics themselves, therefore, "the judge being made attentive as to whether some judgement, either public or ecclesiastical, concerning the crime of handing over would be produced, and the Catholics themselves awaiting and demanding that it be proved, the Donatists read certain very lengthy acts before a prefect, in which it was neither apparent of what sort the prefect himself was, nor was the place read where these things were done; but the acts themselves rang out in a very long recitation with many men handing over many church things, where the name of Melchiades did not sound at all. When these had been finished," the "Cognitor wondered that one thing had been promised and another recited." Next they recited other acts, in which Melchiades was read to have sent the deacons Strato and Cassian to recover the places taken from the Christians in the time of persecution, by order of the emperor. "And when from these acts also no crime of Melchiades appeared either to the Cognitor or to the Catholic advocates, the Donatists said that the deacon Strato, whom he had sent with others to recover the church places, had been recited in the earlier acts as a traditor; and therefore they wished to besprinkle Melchiades too with the crime of handing over, because he employed that deacon without degrading him." But when asked "whether it was at least expressed in those acts of handing over that Strato was a deacon," they were not able to prove even that. The Catholics replied, moreover, that even if Strato [had been called a traditor deacon], it did not follow from this that he was the one whom Melchiades afterwards employed, since it could have happened that

Editors' notes and page, col. 39

Page

running head: DE DECRETIS MELCHIADI PAP (cut off at the image edge; column number 39)
marginal letters: A ‹atque Arelatense concilium intercessit›; B ‹corati jam fuissent›; C ‹Cognitori solum, sed et ipsis Catholicis›; D ‹ablata jussu imperatoris reciperent›
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: ‹atque Arelatense concilium intercessit› (prolegomena dissertation on the decrees of Pope Melchiades), set in full; a stray mark (resembling §) printed before "15." not set, UNSURE; "ejusdèm" set with its printed accent; brackets around "traditor diaconus appellatus" faintly printed, read as [ ], UNSURE; "facerent" partly damaged in print but legible; "decorati" broken across lines within the column, joined

PL 6:40

quemadmodum inter apostolos duo Jacobi duoque Judae, et apud ipsos schismaticos duo Donati, Casensis et Carthaginensis; ita et inter Romanos diaconos duo Stratones simul exstiterint (Aug., Brevic. diei tertiae: collat. cum Donat., cap. 18, n. 34). « Illud quoque additum est a Catholicis, quia etsi demonstraretur, quod omnino non demonstrabatur, eumdem Stratonem diaconum tradidisse, quem postea Melchiades ad recipienda loca ecclesiastica cum aliis diaconis misit, non continuo Melchiadem isto crimine adspergi, quem potuit persecutio longe facere absentem, ut hoc omnino nesciret, eumque innocentem putaret, quem nemo reum accusando monstraret. » (Ibid., n. 35.) Postremo cum ad calumniosam Melchiadis criminationem redire conarentur Donastitae, Cognitoris interlocutione ab ea sunt depulsi.

just as among the apostles there were two Jameses and two Judes, and among the schismatics themselves two Donatuses, the one of Casae and the one of Carthage, so too among the Roman deacons there existed at the same time two Stratos (Aug., Breviculus of the third day: Conference with the Donatists, ch. 18, no. 34). "This too was added by the Catholics: that even if it were demonstrated, which was in no way being demonstrated, that this same Strato the deacon, whom Melchiades afterwards sent with other deacons to recover the church properties, had been a traditor, Melchiades would not on that account at once be stained with that crime, since the persecution could have kept him far away, so that he knew nothing at all of this and thought him innocent whom no one had shown to be guilty by accusing him." (Ibid., no. 35.) Finally, when the Donatists tried to return to their slanderous charge against Melchiades, they were driven off from it by an interlocutory ruling of the Cognitor.

17. Neque tamen propterea quieverunt. Nam et post collationem Carthaginensem inde Melchiadem calumniandi ansam arripuerunt, quod Cassiani nomen et in diaconis ipsius, et in illis gestis ubi facta traditio recitata est, reperiebatur (Augustin. Brevic. coll., n. 36). Sed haec Donatistarum pertinacia et varii conatus ut unum infamarent Melchiadem, cum caeteris parcerent Romani concilii judicibus, argumento sunt, quam gravem quamque sibi incommodam sentirent illius auctoritatem. Neque aliud quidquam tot tamque iniquis molitionibus profecere, nisi ut Melchiadis moderationem, aequitatem, integritatem atque innocentiam vitae patefacerent. Eos enim quod in ipso reprehenderent prorsus defecerit necesse est, qui calumniam ei undequaque struere connitentes, illius occasionem in diaconis ipsius, se⟨u⟩ potius in similitudinibus nominum diaconis ipsius communium, quaerere coacti sunt. Ipsi vero quanto essent furore correpti, prodiderunt, cum judicio, in quo accusatores ac testes una cum accusatis praesentes auditi, et ei quidem a judicibus quos ipsi expetierant, quibusque praesul aequissimus atque omnium episcoporum princeps praesidebat, prolato stare nolentes, Imperatorem appellare maluerunt. His religiosior Constantinus eorum appellationem molestissime tulit: sed paulo indulgentior quam par esset, dum audaciam non comprimit, gravibus Ecclesiae malis locum et occasionem praebuit. Quamvis autem appellantibus aliud Arelatense judicium dederit, hoc tamen, teste Augustino, epist. 43, olim 162, n. 20, dedit, « non quia jam necesse erat, sed eorum perversitatibus cedens, et omni modo cupiens tantam impudentiam cohibere. » Nec prohibuit hujusmodi appellatio, quominus, uti jam exposuimus, episcopi Eunomius et Olympius, in Africam pro componendis Carthaginensis ecclesiae rebus missi, postmodum pronuntiarint, « sententiam decem et novem episcoporum jam dudum datam dissolvi non posse » (Optat., lib. 1).

17. Yet they did not on that account fall quiet. For even after the Conference of Carthage they seized from it a handle for slandering Melchiades, because the name of Cassianus was found both among his deacons and in those acts in which the surrender [of the Scriptures] that had been committed was read out (Augustine, Breviculus of the Conference, no. 36). But this obstinacy of the Donatists and their various attempts to defame Melchiades alone, while they spared the other judges of the Roman council, are proof of how weighty and how troublesome to themselves they felt his authority to be. Nor did they achieve anything else by so many and such unjust contrivances than to make plain the moderation, fairness, integrity and innocence of life of Melchiades. For those must have found nothing at all to censure in him who, striving to build up a slander against him from every quarter, were forced to seek the occasion for it among his deacons, or rather in the likenesses of names common to his deacons. But they themselves betrayed by how great a fury they were seized when, unwilling to abide by the judgement pronounced in a trial in which the accusers and witnesses were heard in person together with the accused, and that too by judges whom they themselves had asked for, and over whom presided a most equitable prelate and the chief of all bishops, they preferred to appeal to the Emperor. Constantine, more religious than they, took their appeal very ill; but, being somewhat more indulgent than was fitting, in not checking their audacity he gave room and occasion to grave evils for the Church. Now although he granted the appellants another judgement, that of Arles, he granted it nevertheless, on the testimony of Augustine, Epist. 43, formerly 162, no. 20, "not because it was now necessary, but yielding to their perversities and desiring by every means to restrain such great impudence." Nor did an appeal of this kind prevent, as we have already set out, the bishops Eunomius and Olympius, sent into Africa to settle the affairs of the church of Carthage, from afterwards pronouncing "that the sentence of the nineteen bishops, given long since, could not be dissolved" (Optatus, Book 1).

§ VI. — De decretis Melchiadi papae attributis.

§ VI. — On the decrees attributed to Pope Melchiades.

18. Duas Melchiadi supposuit Isidorus Mercator epistolas, unam ad Leontium ac caeteros Hispaniarum

18. Isidore Mercator foisted two letters on Melchiades, one to Leontius and the rest of the Spains'

Editors' notes and page, col. 40

Page

running head: [cut off at left] …ELCHIADI PAPÆ ATTRIBUTIS. 40
marginal letters: A ‹quemadmodum inter apostolos›; B ‹Donastitae, Cognitoris interlocutione›; C ‹cesse est, qui calumniam›; D ‹autem appellantibus aliud›
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: entire column is editors' matter (prolegomena on Pope Melchiades/Miltiades), set in full: ‹quemadmodum inter apostolos›, section heading ‹§ VI. — De decretis›, ‹18. Duas Melchiadi›. "se⟨u⟩": printed letter after "se" damaged, looks like "a"; read seu. Running head cut off at the left edge of the image; partial left column (col. 39) not set. Column ends mid-sentence after "Hispaniarum". "Optat., lib. 1": numeral could be read as I. "Digitized by Google" and OCR stamp at foot not set.

PL 6:41

episcopos, alteram de primitiva Ecclesia et de Constantini erga eam Munificentia inscriptam. Utramque ut pote non plus momenti quam authentiae habentem, hic excudere consulto negleximus.

bishops, the other entitled On the Primitive Church and On the Munificence of Constantine towards It. Each, inasmuch as it has no more weight than authenticity, we have deliberately omitted to print here.

19. In Pontificali libro eidem papae duo adscribuntur decreta: primum quo sancitur, « Ne ulla ratione die Dominica aut quinta feria jejunium quis fidelium ageret: quia eos dies pagani quasi sacrum jejunium celebrant. » Cui decreto in eodem Pontificali libro proxime subjicitur, « Et Manichaei inventi sunt in urbe Roma ab eodem. »

19. In the Pontifical Book two decrees are ascribed to the same pope: the first, by which it is enacted, "That none of the faithful should for any reason keep a fast on the Lord's day or on the fifth weekday, because the pagans celebrate those days as if with a sacred fast." To this decree there is appended, immediately after it in the same Pontifical Book, "And the Manichaeans were discovered in the city of Rome by the same."

20. Verum hoc decretum Melchiadi falso adscribi duplici ratione liquet: primo quidem quia etiam ante hujus papae tempora fidelibus interdictum fuit die Dominica jejunium: deinde quia ut interdiceretur, non ea causa fuit, quod illa die pagani seu gentiles quasi sacrum jejunium agerent; sed quia christiani jejunium ei diei minime congruere censuerunt, qua Christus Ecclesiam resurrectione sua laetificavit. Quod autem sibi cavendum didicerant ipso usu et traditione, quae diem Dominicum festive agendum esse docet, majori religione cavere tum coeperunt, cum Manichaeos, non paganos, hoc die veluti sacrum jejunium agere coeperunt. Ne vero id gratis dicere videamur, utrumque paucis comprobandum est.

20. But that this decree is falsely ascribed to Melchiades is clear for a twofold reason: first, because even before the times of this pope fasting on the Lord's day was forbidden to the faithful; secondly, because the reason why it was forbidden was not that on that day the pagans or gentiles kept a fast as if sacred, but because Christians judged that fasting was in no way fitting for the day on which Christ gladdened the Church by His resurrection. And what they had learned to avoid by usage itself and by tradition, which teaches that the Lord's day is to be kept festively, they then began to avoid with greater scruple when the Manichaeans, not the pagans, began to keep a fast on this day as if sacred. But lest we seem to say this without grounds, each point must be proved in a few words.

21. Ante Melchiadis aevum scripsit Tertullianus lib. de Corona, c. 3: « Die Dominico jejunium nefas ducimus. » Legitur et ad calcem libri v apostolicarum Constitutionum: « Reus enim erit peccati, qui Dominico die jejunaverit, cum sit dies resurrectionis. » Nulla hic alia ratio subjicitur. Sed subinde Augustinus, epist. 36, ad Casulanum, c. 12, n. 27, dicens: « Die Dominico jejunare scandalum est magnum, » hanc novam addidit causam: « maxime posteaquam innotuit detestabilis multumque fidei apostolicae Scripturisque divinis apertissime contraria haeresis Manichaeorum, qui suis auditoribus ad jejunandum istum tamquam constituerunt legitimum diem. Per quod factum est, ut jejunium diei Dominici horribilius haberetur. » Et n. 29, ne quis Dominico die celebret jejunium, tunc praesertim cavendum docet, « posteaquam haeretici, maximeimpiissimi Manichaei, jejunia diei Dominici non aliqua necessitate occurente peragere, sed quasi sacra solemnitate statuta dogmatizare coeperunt. » De iisdem haereticis istud quoque Leo papa, epist. 17, ad Turibium, cap. 4, testatur: « Sicut in nostro examine detecti atque convicti sunt, Dominicum diem, quem nobis Salvatoris nostri resurrectio consecravit, exigunt in moerore jejunii. » Quocirca in libro Pontificali nihil absurdi videretur, si dictum esset: « Manichaei a Melchiade inventi sunt in urbe Roma. Tum is papa constituit, ne ulla ratione die Dominica jejunium quis fidelium ageret: quia hunc diem haeretici illi quasi sacrum jejunium celebrant. » Mercator tamen, librum Pontificalem nequaquam corrigens, sed eum de more imitatus, Melchiadem sic decernentem inducit: « Jejunium vero Dominici diei et quintae feriae nemo celebrare debet: ut inter jejunium

21. Before the age of Melchiades, Tertullian wrote in the book On the Crown, ch. 3: "We regard fasting on the Lord's day as unlawful." It is read also at the end of book 5 of the Apostolic Constitutions: "For he will be guilty of sin who fasts on the Lord's day, since it is the day of the resurrection." No other reason is added here. But afterwards Augustine, in letter 36, to Casulanus, ch. 12, n. 27, saying: "To fast on the Lord's day is a great scandal," added this new cause: "especially since there became known the detestable heresy of the Manichaeans, much and most openly contrary to the apostolic faith and to the divine Scriptures, who appointed this as the lawful day, as it were, for their hearers to fast. Through which it came about that fasting on the Lord's day was held in greater horror." And in n. 29 he teaches that one must then above all take care that no one celebrate a fast on the Lord's day, "since the heretics, most especially the most impious Manichaeans, began not to perform fasts on the Lord's day because some necessity arose, but to teach them as dogma, as if appointed by a sacred solemnity." Concerning the same heretics Pope Leo also testifies to this, in letter 17, to Turibius, ch. 4: "As they were detected and convicted in our examination, they spend the Lord's day, which the resurrection of our Saviour consecrated for us, in the sorrow of fasting." Therefore nothing absurd would appear in the Pontifical Book if it had been said: "The Manichaeans were discovered by Melchiades in the city of Rome. Then this pope decreed that none of the faithful should for any reason keep a fast on the Lord's day, because those heretics celebrate this day as if with a sacred fast." Mercator, however, by no means correcting the Pontifical Book but imitating it after his manner, brings in Melchiades decreeing thus: "But no one ought to celebrate a fast on the Lord's day and the fifth weekday, so that between the fast

Editors' notes and page, col. 41

Page

running head: 41 DE DECRETIS MELCHIADI PAPÆ (final letters cut off at the image edge; "PAP" visible)
marginal letters: A episcopos, alteram de primitiva Ecclesia et de Cons-; B non ea causa fuit, quod illa die pagani seu gentiles; C nis. Nulla hic alia ratio subjicitur. Sed subinde; D iisdem haereticis istud quoque Leo papa, epist. 17,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: the whole column is part of the editors' dissertation on the decrees attributed to Melchiades (first words "episcopos, alteram de primitiva Ecclesia"); begins mid-sentence. Last word "jeju-" split at the column break. "cum Manichaeos ... agere coeperunt" set as printed (syntax odd; perhaps for "viderunt"), rendered loosely. "ut pote" set as two words as printed. Printer's signature "PATROL. VI." and the "Digitized" watermark not set. No full-width line. The right-hand column (42), cut off at the image edge, not set.

PL 6:42

christianorum et gentilium, veraciter credentium atque infidelium et haereticorum vera et non falsa discretio habeatur. »

Christians and pagans, of those who truly believe and of unbelievers and heretics, a true and not a false distinction may be maintained."

22. Circa Nicaeni concilii tempus multa Manichaeorum placitis affinia gerebat ac docebat Eustathius quidam, adversus quem Gangrensis synodus congregata can. 18 ex interpretatione Dionysii Exigui statuit: « Si quis propter continentiam, quae putatur, aut contumaciam in die Dominico jejunat, anathema sit. » Ubi hoc concilium, sicut et Caesaraugustanum adversus Priscillianistas, etiam Manichaeos dici solitos, anno 381 celebratum, dum can. 2 prohibet, « ne quis jejunet die Dominica, causa temporis aut persuasionis aut superstitionis, » jejunium etiam die Dominico, modo absit superstitionis causa, permittere quodam modo videntur. Et Hieronymus quidem, epist. 28, ad Lucinium scribit: « Utinam omni tempore jejunare possimus: quod in Actibus Apostolorum (ut etiam Augustinus epist. 36, n. 28, observavit) diebus Pentecostes et die Dominico apostolum Paulum et cum eo credentes fecisse legimus. » No hinc tamen Ecclesiae morem ac legem improbare videatur, mox dictum temperans addit: « Nec hoc dico, quod Dominicis diebus jejunandum putem. »

22. Around the time of the Council of Nicaea a certain Eustathius held and taught many things akin to the tenets of the Manichaeans; against him the Synod of Gangra, once assembled, decreed in canon 18, in the version of Dionysius Exiguus: "If anyone, on account of what is supposed to be continence, or out of contumacy, fasts on the Lord's day, let him be anathema." Here this council, like that of Saragossa, held in the year 381 against the Priscillianists, who were also commonly called Manichaeans, which in canon 2 forbids "that anyone fast on the Lord's day by reason of the season or of persuasion or of superstition", seem in a certain manner to permit fasting even on the Lord's day, provided that superstition is not the motive. And Jerome indeed, in letter 28, writes to Lucinius: "Would that we could fast at all times, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles (as Augustine too observed in letter 36, n. 28) that the apostle Paul and the believers with him did on the days of Pentecost and on the Lord's day." Yet, lest he should seem on this account to disapprove of the custom and law of the Church, he presently tempers what he has said and adds: "Nor do I say this because I think that one ought to fast on Lord's days."

23. Haec autem lex, Epiphanio teste (Epiph., Expos. fid., n. 22), religiose adeo servabatur, ut ii etiam, qui summo pietatis studio perpetua sibi jejunia imponebant, solos Dominicos ac Pentecostes dies exciperent: « Namque, inquit, Dominicas omnes festas hilaresque sanxit Ecclesia, nec ulla jejunia celebrat. Absurdum est enim jejunare Dominica die... Nec ipsius quidem Quadragesimae Dominicis jejunare solet Ecclesia. » Contra idem sanctus, haer. 75, n. 3, Aerianos merito reprehendit, quod stulta libertatis ostentatione, « Dominica die potius jejunare affectent, quarta vero et sexta feria vescantur. » Neque minus vani nostra aetate heterodoxi, qui christianam ponunt libertatem in contemnendis abstinentiae jejuniorumque legibus, quas a Christo ejusque Apostolis edocta Ecclesia sapienter instituit. Ipsa est, quae dum fideles ad jejunandum vel adhortationibus vel praeceptis excitavit, semper excepit Dominicum diem, non ut eos a gentilibus secerneret, sed ut resurrectionis dominicae diem numquam non festive celebrandum doceret. Falso igitur Melchiades, ne quis Dominico die jejunium ageret, decrevisse ponitur. Neque minus falso idem de feria quinta constituisse in libro Pontificali narratur.

23. This law, moreover, on the testimony of Epiphanius (Epiph., Exposition of the Faith, n. 22), was so scrupulously observed that even those who out of the highest zeal for piety imposed perpetual fasts upon themselves excepted only the Lord's days and the days of Pentecost: "For," he says, "the Church has established all Lord's days as festive and joyful, and keeps no fasts on them. For it is absurd to fast on the Lord's day... Not even on the Lord's days of Lent itself is the Church accustomed to fast." On the other hand the same saint, in heresy 75, n. 3, rightly rebukes the Aerians because, in a foolish display of liberty, "they choose rather to fast on the Lord's day, but eat on the fourth and sixth days of the week." No less vain are the heterodox of our own age, who place Christian liberty in despising the laws of abstinence and of fasts, which the Church, taught by Christ and His Apostles, wisely instituted. It is she who, while she has roused the faithful to fasting whether by exhortations or by precepts, has always excepted the Lord's day, not in order to separate them from the pagans, but in order to teach that the day of the Lord's resurrection must always be celebrated festively. Falsely, therefore, is Melchiades set down as having decreed that no one should keep a fast on the Lord's day. And no less falsely is the same man related in the Liber Pontificalis to have made a decree about the fifth day of the week.

24. Numquam ea fuit christianorum erga feriam quintam religio, qua hoc die jejunare prohiberentur. Tantum invaluit mos, ut cum alii feriis quarta et sexta, alii sexta et sabbato jejunarent, plerique feria quinta, quae diebus illis jejunio consecratis vicina est, sibi a jejunio abstinendum censerent. Hinc apostolicae constitutiones (lib. v, c. 24) ab hypocritarum, qui singularia semper affectant, more nos dehortantes praecipiunt: « Jejunia vero nostra ne sint cum hypocritis communia; jejunant enim secunda feria et quinta. » Et Augustinus, epist. 36, Romani

24. Never was there such reverence among Christians towards the fifth day of the week that they were forbidden to fast on that day. So far did the custom prevail that, while some fasted on the fourth and sixth days and others on the sixth day and the Sabbath, most thought that they should abstain from fasting on the fifth day, which lies next to those days consecrated to fasting. Hence the Apostolic Constitutions (bk 5, ch. 24), dissuading us from the custom of the hypocrites, who always strive after singularity, enjoin: "Let not our fasts be in common with the hypocrites; for they fast on the second day of the week and the fifth." And Augustine, in letter 36, refuting the writing of a certain Roman

Editors' notes and page, col. 42

Page

running head: ...ELCHIADI PAPAE ATTRIBUTIS. 42 (beginning of head cut off at left edge of image)
marginal letters: A ‹nium christianorum et gentilium›; B ‹tere quodam modo videntur›; C ‹Absurdum est enim jejunare›; D ‹nico die jejunium ageret›
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: whole column is editors' matter (dissertation on the decrees attributed to Pope Melchiades: ‹nium christianorum et gentilium›, paragraphs 22-24), set in full; column begins with the fragment "nium" of a word broken from column 41; last word "Romani" (final letter slightly unclear) runs on into column 43; printer's signature "2" and Google watermark not set; no full-width line.

PL 6:43

cujusdam, qui hebdomadae cujusque sex diebus jejunandum esse contendebat, scriptum refellens, num. 9 ait: « Apud Romanos omnibus istis sex diebus, praeter paucissimos clericos aut monachos, quotusquisque invenitur, qui frequentet quotidiana jejunia? maxime quia ibi jejunandum quinta feria non videtur. » Unde colligere est, Romae quidem vulgarem obtinuisse opinionem, qua feria quinta non jejunandum esse putaretur, sed nullam ea de re legem exstitisse, immo Augustini aevo ibi a nonnullis tum monachis tum clericis cum laude celebrata esse quotidiana sex dierum jejunia.

who maintained that one must fast on six days of every week, says at no. 9: «Among the Romans, how few are found, apart from a very few clerics or monks, who keep daily fasts on all those six days? especially since there it does not seem that one should fast on Thursday.» From this one may gather that at Rome a common opinion did indeed prevail, by which it was thought that one should not fast on Thursday, but that no law existed on the matter; indeed, that in Augustine's age daily fasts of six days were kept there with praise by some, both monks and clerics.

25. Certe non modo ex Cassiano, coll. 21, c. 24, sed ex Gregorio papa constat, etiam Romae quintis Quadragesimae feriis intermissa non fuisse jejunia. Sic porro Gregorius homil. 16, in Evangel., loquitur: « Sex hebdomadae veniunt, quarum videlicet dies quadraginta dno fiunt, ex quibus, dum sex dies Dominici abstinentiae subtrahuntur, non plus in abstinentia, quam sex et triginta remanent. » Ibi enim abstinentiae nomen pro jejunio usurpari nemo non videt: cum ideo sex subtrahantur Dominici dies, non quia iis diebus carnis abstinentia, sed quia jejunium intermittatur. Quocirea Gregorius horum triginta sex dierum jejunio anni nostri decimas offerre nos Deo docet. Hinc luculenter confutatur quod Walafridus Strabo cap. 20, et ex eo Micrologus cap. 50, libro Pontificali atque spuria Melchiadis epistola decepti scribunt: « Melchiades Romae praesulatum agens, statuit ut nulla ratione Dominica aut quinta feria jejunium quis fidelium ageret. Pagani enim his diebus quasi jejunia frequentabant. Ideo B. Gregorius in dispositione officiorum anni, infra quadragesimam, quintam feriam vacantem demisit; ut quia festiva erat veluti Dominica, etiam officio diei Dominicae celebris haberetur. Quae quinta feria quoniam postmodum coepit ut caeterae, jejuniis applicari; Gregorius junior statuit eam Missis et orationibus esse solemnem. » Istud porro aiunt, vita fulti Gregorii II, qui junior appellari tum solebat, ubi apud Anastasium legimus: « Hic quadragesimali tempore, ut in quinta feria jejunium, atque Missarum celebritas fieret in ecclesiis, quod non agebatur, instituit. » Sed et hoc loco convincuntur Walafridus ac Micrologus ex praeconcepta opinione potius, quam ulla auctoritate dixisse feria quinta Missam e Dominica fuisse repetitam; cum hoc die, nullam ante Gregorium II, agi consuevisse istinc doceamur. Ita error errorem facile parit.

25. Certainly it is established not only from Cassian, Conference 21, ch. 24, but also from Pope Gregory, that even at Rome fasts were not interrupted on the Thursdays of Lent. For Gregory speaks thus in Homily 16 on the Gospels: «Six weeks come, of which the days, namely, amount to forty-two; from which, when the six Lord's days are subtracted from abstinence, no more than thirty-six remain in abstinence.» For there no one fails to see that the word abstinence is used for fasting: since the six Lord's days are subtracted for this reason, not because on those days abstinence from flesh is interrupted, but because fasting is. Wherefore Gregory teaches that by the fast of these thirty-six days we offer to God the tithes of our year. Hence is clearly refuted what Walafrid Strabo, ch. 20, and following him Micrologus, ch. 50, deceived by the Liber Pontificalis and the spurious letter of Melchiades, write: «Melchiades, holding the episcopate of Rome, decreed that on no account should any of the faithful keep a fast on the Lord's day or on Thursday. For the pagans used to observe as it were fasts on these days. Therefore blessed Gregory, in the arrangement of the offices of the year, left Thursday within Lent vacant, so that, since it was festive like the Lord's day, it might also be celebrated with the office of the Lord's day. And since this Thursday afterwards began, like the others, to be given over to fasts, Gregory the Younger decreed that it should be solemn with Masses and prayers.» This moreover they say relying on the life of Gregory II, who was then customarily called the Younger, where we read in Anastasius: «He instituted that in the time of Lent, on Thursday, fasting and the celebration of Masses should take place in the churches, which had not been done.» But in this passage too Walafrid and Micrologus are shown to have said, from a preconceived opinion rather than from any authority, that on Thursday the Mass of the Lord's day was repeated; since we are taught from that very source that before Gregory II no [Mass] used to be celebrated on that day. Thus error easily begets error.

26. Ad jejunium quod attinet, nullam S. Benedictus noverat legem, quae illud feria quinta servari prohiberet. Quippe regulae suae capite 41 continuum ad sanctum usque Pascha jejunium praescribens, feriam quintam non excipit. S. Isidorus Hispalensis, Reg. cap. 10, quotidiana per totum annum jejunia, solis Dominicis exceptis, ad imitationem patrum permittit. Postea quidem Magistri Regula, cap. 27, 28 et 53, feriis quintis jejunium remisit; sed ab hac remissione quintas quadragesimae ferias excipi voluit. Neque ⟨v⟩ero praedictae remissionis hanc dedit rationem, quia

26. As regards fasting, Saint Benedict knew of no law forbidding it to be kept on Thursday. Indeed, in chapter 41 of his Rule, prescribing a continuous fast right up to holy Easter, he does not except Thursday. Saint Isidore of Seville, Rule, ch. 10, permits daily fasts throughout the whole year, the Lord's days alone excepted, in imitation of the fathers. Later indeed the Rule of the Master, ch. 27, 28 and 53, remitted the fast on Thursdays; but it wished the Thursdays of Lent to be excepted from this remission. Nor indeed did it give this reason for the aforesaid remission, that

Editors' notes and page, col. 43

Page

running head: 43 DE DECRETIS MELCHIADI PAPAE (cut off at the right edge of the image)
marginal letters: A ‹cujusdam, qui hebdomadae›; B ‹Sic porro Gregorius homil. 16›; C ‹fidelium ageret. Pagani enim›; D ‹quinta Missam e Dominica›
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: the whole column is editors' prose (dissertation on the decrees of Pope Melchiades, from ‹cujusdam, qui hebdomadae› through §§25-26), set in full; column begins and ends mid-sentence; ‹⟨v⟩ero› in the last line has damaged first letter; ‹Quocirea› reading slightly uncertain from the image; right-hand column (col. 44) cut off and not set.

PL 6:44

feria quinta solemne apud paganos jejunium sit, sed « quia adscensa Domini ipso die omni anno occurrit, » hoc est quia eum diem Dominus suo in coelum adscensu consecravit. Sane ab hoc die moerori ac jejuniis consecrando, procul aberant pagani, quibus eumdem in honore Jovis festivum agere solemne erat. Quocirca christianos quosdam, quos ad perversam eorum imitationem diabolus seduxerat, Caesarius Arelatensis episcopus, apud Augustinum, append. t. V, serm. 265, n. 5, vehementer corripit his verbis : « Quia audivimus quod aliquos viros vel mulieres ita diabolus circumveniat, ut quinta feria nec viri opera faciant, nec mulieres lanificium, coram Deo et sanctis angelis contestamur, quia quicumque hoc observare voluerint, nisi per prolixam et duram poenitentiam tale sacrilegium emendaverint, etc. » Eamdem rem concilium Narbonense, anno 589 habitum, quam indigne ferret, can. 15, aperuit his verbis : « Ad nos pervenit, quosdam de populis catholicae fidei exsecrabili ritu diem quintam feriam, qui et dicitur Jovis, multos excolere, et operationem non facere. Quam rem pro Dei timore exsecrantes, etc. » Neque vero Patribus tantopere displicuit ille mos nisi quia ab impia gentilium superstitione derivatus esset. Ad eum igitur abolendum, feria quinta potius jejunia indicenda erant, quomodo iisdem temporibus in kalendis Januariis eamdem ob causam factum est, quam prohibenda.

the fifth weekday is a solemn fast among the pagans, but "because the Ascension of the Lord falls on that very day every year," that is, because the Lord consecrated that day by His ascent into heaven. Indeed the pagans were far from consecrating this day to mourning and fasts, since it was their solemn custom to keep it as a festival in honour of Jupiter. For this reason Caesarius, bishop of Arles, in Augustine, appendix, vol. 5, sermon 265, no. 5, sharply rebukes certain Christians whom the devil had led astray into a perverse imitation of them, in these words: "Because we have heard that the devil so deceives some men or women that on the fifth weekday the men do not do work, nor the women their wool-working, we solemnly declare before God and the holy angels that whoever wish to observe this, unless they amend such a sacrilege by long and hard penance, etc." The council of Narbonne, held in the year 589, laid open the same matter, which it took ill, in canon 15, in these words: "It has come to us that certain people of the catholic faith, many of them, by an execrable rite keep the fifth day of the week, which is also called Jupiter's day, and do no work. Execrating this thing out of the fear of God, etc." Nor indeed did that custom displease the Fathers so greatly except because it had been derived from the impious superstition of the gentiles. To abolish it, therefore, fasts were to be enjoined on the fifth weekday rather than forbidden, just as in those same times was done on the Kalends of January for the same reason.

27. Decretum alterum in libro Pontificali expressum est in hunc modum : « Hic fecit ut oblationes consecratae per ecclesias ex consecratu episcopi dirigerentur, quod declaratur fermentum. » Cui decreto simile est illud quod idem liber Siricio attribuit : « Hic constituit, ut nullus presbyter Missas celebraret per hebdomadam, nisi consecratum episcopi loci designati susciperet declaratum, quod nominatur fermentum. » Quamquam in Bollandiano libri Pontificalis exemplari, ut et in Fossatensi, nunc Colbertino, idem Siricii decretum simpliciter ita effertur : « Constituit ut sine consecrato episcopi, loci cujuslibet presbyteris non liceret consecrari. » Ubi nisi legamus consecrare, hoc decretum ad presbyterorum consecrationem referendum videbitur : quod aliquando factum esse ignoramus. Hoc tantum novimus olim nonnullis in ecclesiis usu receptum fuisse, ut presbyteri post ordinationem suam ab episcopo suo Dominici corporis acciperent portiones, de quibus certo dierum numero communionem perciperent. Quocirca in antiquo Pontificali Suessionensi apud nostrum Edmundum Martene, de antiq. Eccl. Rit., t. II, p. 322, istud edicitur : « Debent presbyteri portiones Dominici corporis ab episcopo accipere, de quibus percipiant communionem per quadraginta dies. » Et in antiquo Ordine Romano novitiis presbyteris praescribitur, ut ex data sibi oblata consecrata communicent usque septem dies. Verum, ex auctioribus libri Pontificalis codicibus, corrigendi videntur Bollandianus atque Fossatensis adeo ut in eis legatur consecrare, non consecrari,

27. The other decree is expressed in the Pontifical Book in this manner: "He brought it about that consecrated oblations should be sent through the churches from the consecration of the bishop, which is declared [to be] the fermentum." Like this decree is that which the same book attributes to Siricius: "He decreed that no presbyter should celebrate Masses during the week unless he received the consecrated [offering] of the bishop of the designated place, declared, which is called the fermentum." Although in the Bollandist copy of the Pontifical Book, as also in that of Fossés, now Colbert's, the same decree of Siricius is expressed simply thus: "He decreed that without the consecrated [offering] of the bishop it should not be lawful for presbyters of any place to be consecrated." Here, unless we read "to consecrate," this decree will seem to refer to the consecration of presbyters, which we do not know ever to have been done. This only we know, that it was once received by custom in some churches that presbyters after their ordination received from their bishop portions of the Lord's body, from which they took communion for a fixed number of days. Accordingly in the ancient Pontifical of Soissons, in our Edmond Martène, On the Ancient Rites of the Church, vol. 2, p. 322, this is enjoined: "Presbyters ought to receive portions of the Lord's body from the bishop, from which they may take communion for forty days." And in the ancient Roman Order it is prescribed for new presbyters that they communicate from the consecrated oblation given to them for up to seven days. But, from the fuller manuscripts of the Pontifical Book, the Bollandist and Fossés copies seem to need correcting, so that in them "to consecrate" is read, not "to be consecrated,"

Editors' notes and page, col. 44

Page

running head: LCHIADI PAPÆ ATTRIBUTIS. 44 (left part cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A ‹feria quinta solemne apud paganos›; B ‹et duram poenitentiam tale sacrilegium›; C ‹consecratae per ecclesias ex consecratu›; D ‹ut presbyteri post ordinationem suam›
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: ‹feria quinta solemne apud paganos› (continuation of the editors' dissertation on decrees attributed to Pope Melchiades, set in full); column begins and ends mid-sentence; "t. v" and "t. ii" printed in small capitals, set V and II; consecrare/consecrari printed in italics at the column end

PL 6:45

idque de consecratione eucharistiae seu Missarum celebratione intelligatur. Sed neque hinc conficitur, oblationis ab episcopo consecratae portiones per ecclesias ac titulos mittendi morem falso ad Melchiadem ut ad ejus auctorem referri: cum in eodem libro Romani pontifices id interdum constituisse dicantur, non quod instituerint primi, sed quod dumtaxat confirmarint. Nam ut a Siricio non recedamus, secundum hunc librum, « constituit haereticos sub manus impositione recipi et reconciliari; » quia epist. 1, ad Himer., cap. 1, confirmat, quod jam Stephanus traditionis auctoritate vindicarat.

and that it should be understood of the consecration of the Eucharist, or the celebration of Masses. But neither does it follow from this that the custom of sending portions of the oblation consecrated by the bishop through the churches and titles is falsely referred to Melchiades as to its author, since in the same book the Roman pontiffs are sometimes said to have established something, not because they were the first to institute it, but because they merely confirmed it. For, not to depart from Siricius, according to this book "he established that heretics be received and reconciled under the imposition of the hand," because in epist. 1, to Himerius, ch. 1, he confirms what Stephen had already upheld by the authority of tradition.

28. Ut ut est, praedictum fermenti per ecclesias mittendi usum Innocentio antiquiorem esse constat ex his quae idem papa epist. 25, ad Decentium, n. 8, scribit: « De fermento vero, quod die Dominico per titulos mittimus, superflue nos consulere voluisti: cum omnes ecclesiae nostrae intra civitatem sint constitutae. Quarum presbyteri, quia die ipsa propter plebem sibi creditam nobiscum convenire non possunt, idcirco fermentum a nobis confectum per acolythos accipiunt, ut se a nostra communione, maxime illa die, non judicent separatos. Quod per parochias (extra urbem constitutas) fieri debere non puto:

28. However that may be, it is established that the aforesaid custom of sending the leaven through the churches is older than Innocent, from what the same pope writes in epist. 25, to Decentius, n. 8: "But concerning the leaven which we send through the titles on the Lord's Day, you wished to consult us needlessly, since all our churches are situated within the city. Since their presbyters cannot assemble with us on that day because of the people entrusted to them, they therefore receive through acolytes the leaven consecrated by us, so that they may not judge themselves separated from our communion, especially on that day. This I do not think ought to be done through the parishes (situated outside the city):

quia nec longe portanda sunt sacramenta. Nec nos per coemeteria diversa constitutis presbyteris destinamus. » Unde apparet id, quod in libro Pontificali dicitur: « cujuslibet loci presbyteris, nisi consecratum episcopi susceperint, per hebdomadam, » Missas celebrare seu consecrare non licere, minime accuratum esse; cum hoc non de quibuslibet, sed tantum de presbyteris in urbe constitutis, et quidem sola die Dominica, decretum sit. Praeterea hunc usum ideo, ut presbyterorum cum episcopo suo communionis indicium esset, inductum esse Innocentius palam indicat. Hinc eucharistia sic missa cur fermenti nomine donata sit, satis intelligitur. Fermenti quippe vicem gerebat, quatenus ecclesias ad quas mittebatur, sicut fermentum massam cui commiscetur, cum episcopo suo in uno Christi corpore copulabat atque uniebat. Porro istam oblationis ab episcopis consecratae particulam a presbyteris in calicem tunc missam esse, cum in Missa dicebant: « Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum, » hoc est, eo ipso tempore, quo etiam nunc hostiae consecratae minor particula in calicem a presbyteris demittitur, ex antiquis glossis in Decretales a Mabillonio nostro, Analect. t. IV, pag. 60, citatis comperimus.

because the sacraments ought not to be carried far. Nor do we send it through the various cemeteries to the presbyters appointed there." Hence it is apparent that what is said in the Pontifical book, "that the presbyters of any place whatever, unless they have received what has been consecrated by the bishop, during the week," may not celebrate or consecrate Masses, is by no means accurate, since this was decreed not of any presbyters whatever, but only of the presbyters appointed in the city, and indeed on the Lord's day alone. Moreover, Innocent openly indicates that this usage was introduced for this purpose, that it might be a sign of the communion of the presbyters with their bishop. From this it is sufficiently understood why the eucharist thus sent was given the name of leaven. For it took the place of leaven, inasmuch as it joined and united the churches to which it was sent with their bishop in the one body of Christ, as leaven does the mass into which it is mixed. Further, that this particle of the oblation consecrated by the bishops was put into the chalice by the presbyters at the moment when they said in the Mass, "The peace of the Lord be always with you", that is, at that very time at which even now a smaller particle of the consecrated host is let down into the chalice by the presbyters, we have learned from the ancient glosses on the Decretals cited by our Mabillon, Analecta, vol. IV, p. 60.

Editors' notes and page, col. 45

Footnotes

(printed under page 26)

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: Conjugium memini› · call in col 46

ᵃ Celebrat auctor conjugium S. Rheticii, qui deinceps ad episcopatum Augustodunensem fuit evectus. Qua de re Gregorius Turonensis lib. de Glor. Confessor., cap. 72.

ᵃ The author celebrates the marriage of St. Rheticius, who was afterwards raised to the bishopric of Autun. On this see Gregory of Tours, book On the Glory of the Confessors, chap. 72.

(printed under page 26)