Appendix quarta: Oxoniensis editionis selectae in Cyprianum notae; J. M. Routh, notae; J. Trombelli, praefatio in Exhortationem ad poenitentiam

for your testing, as though something new were happening to you. The punishment of fire is the supreme one, according to Tertullian in the book To the Martyrs; and the Apostle, to show the supreme proof of Christian faith, [says] "and if I hand over my body to be burned". And so the torments of eternal damnation are signified by the gehenna of fire."

That you may not fall away. He seems to have read "and do not be astonished, as though something strange were happening to you."

Then the heavens lie open to the martyrs. Rigaltius says: He alludes to that saying of Stephen: "I see the heavens opened." Tertullian: "The whole key of paradise is your blood." Cyprian himself, Letter 54: "He who undergoes martyrdom is baptized in his own blood." This was the chief of the cares of bishops and presbyters, to make the people strong and steadfast for undergoing martyrdom for the name of Christ.

When he has seen our people put to flight by fear of persecution. Rigaltius says: He does not shrink from flight in persecution, being milder and more lenient than Tertullian. Indeed he must defend it; otherwise he would be condemning himself.

Nor hear the bishops discoursing. Rigaltius says: That is, teaching, expounding. He himself, in the Letter to Antonianus: "I had read before, and had learned from the bishop's discourse, that one must not sacrifice to idols." Pontius in the Life of Cyprian: "O blessed people of the Church, which had always heard its bishop discoursing."

To whom it is not lawful to kill. Rigaltius says: The weapons of Christians are prayers and tears, sometimes flight, but most often the constancy of brave endurance for the name of Christ. Tertullian in the Apology: "Under that discipline it is more lawful to be killed than to kill." Christ, in disarming Peter, ungirded every Christian. And so in the following letter Cyprian says to Cornelius that the soldiers of Christ now keep watch soberly and stand armed for battle: they cannot be conquered, they can die; and by this very fact they are unconquered, because they do not fear to die, nor do they fight back against their assailants, since it is not lawful for the innocent to kill even the guilty.

Of this darkness. With the words transposed, he seems to have read "against the world-rulers of the age of this darkness."

In the most wicked day. Rigaltius says: That is, of the Antichrist. "Of the evil one."

As the sign of God. Impressed on the forehead among the solemn rites of baptism.

Mindful of the Eucharist, which received the body of the Lord. Rigaltius says: Ambrose, book 4, On the Sacraments, chapter 2: "The priest says to you, 'The body of Christ', and you say, 'Amen', that is, 'True'. What the tongue confesses, let the heart hold fast." Priorius says: He speaks here according to the rite by which the Eucharist was held out into the hands of the laity, not into the mouth; whence the Trullan synod, canon 28, concerning a presbyter: "let him therefore bless neither in church nor in private, nor send the body of Christ to others." The Council of Toledo I, chapter 14: "But if anyone does not consume the Eucharist received from the priest, let him be driven out as sacrilegious." And canon 3 of the Council of Caesaraugusta. Here it is to be noted that the laity received with the hand but consumed with the mouth. The Roman Church, which changed this custom, seems to have believed that the hands of the laity were more profane than their mouths.

Year 253.

Letter 62.

With the greatest groaning of our soul. This letter, which we by no means doubt to be genuine, occurs very rarely in the manuscript copies; for among all those to which I was given access I saw only one that contained it. There is no need to refute the wholly far-fetched conjecture of Pamelius, who supposes that these Africans were captured by the Goths. Certainly Africa, most fertile in monsters, was not so cultivated and peaceful as to nourish no barbarians; but [on his view] they would have to be sought at the opposite pole of the world. On this matter let the Cyprianic Annals be consulted.

He has stripped [them] from the jaws of the devil. Rigaltius speaks thus: In Letter 4 he says: "The baggage must be stripped out of the fire."

Members dedicated to Christ. By a resolve of the mind set upon chastity; for at that time they were not shut up in cloisters. Pamelius says: You have a similar phrase about holy virgins both in the Letter to Pomponius and in the book On the Discipline and Dress of Virgins.

"I was a captive, and you redeemed me." The redemption of captives was always reckoned in the Church among the foremost duties of charity. By Lactantius it is called a great and splendid office of justice. Ambrose for these purposes even broke up the consecrated vessels of the Church, book 2, On Duties, chapter 28. Augustine, as Possidius testifies, did the same; and so did Deogratias, as Victor of Vita relates, book 1.

"But we have sent a hundred thousand sesterces." Rigaltius says: Johann Friedrich Gronovius, in his book On Sesterces, number 18, very rightly pointed out that Pamelius doubted in vain about the fault in that common reading. For it is not Latin, nor does it signify any sum in Latin at all. Therefore without doubt one must write "a hundred thousand sesterces." This reading will make up a sum of 25,000 of our present-day livres. Lombert reduces this estimate of Rigaltius to seven thousand five hundred French livres. Capellus calculates otherwise, so that they are nine thousand six hundred and thirty-nine livres, seventeen sous, ten deniers. If we make our reckoning by the standards of English money, perhaps he will come nearest to the truth of the matter who says that the sum here indicated makes seven hundred and eighty-one pounds sterling and five shillings. We have corrected the copyist's evident error according to the analogy of the Latin language; for it is quite certain that Cyprian spoke correctly; nor are we pleased with the customary method of critics, who leave mistakes in the text so that they may laboriously correct them in their notes.

"I have appended the names of each." Rigaltius says: Not in vain, nor superfluously. For in the sacrifices of prayers the names of those were offered who had worked readily and willingly at so necessary a task. That to be excluded from this privilege was held in the place of a most grievous penalty, we have shown above, at Epistle 1.

Epistle 63.

"Although I know." In this epistle Cyprian is not refuting the Aquarii, or Hydroparastatae, an offshoot of the Ebionites, as Epiphanius testifies, Heresies 30, nor the Encratites, followers of Tatian; whose error lay chiefly in this, that they shunned wine as a profane and abominable thing, as Epiphanius says, "calling it diabolical," asserting with fabulous vanity that vines had sprung from Satan and the earth. Our author says that these men had erred from ignorance or simplicity. And because they took the Eucharist in the hours before dawn, at which time nobody would drink wine, as the Apostle reports, Acts 2:15, it is credible that they substituted water as a more respectable kind of drink and less exposed to suspicion; especially since the heathen could have detected from the smell of wine that those who smelled of wine were Christians; a matter which is dealt with at the end of this epistle. Mention of this well-known epistle is made by St Augustine, book 4 On Christian Doctrine, chapter 21, where the words that occur right at its beginning are brought forward as an example of the plain style of speaking.

"By a human and novel institution." Rigaltius says: So a little later he will say, "to write down our own and human things." Let what we observed above be consulted about the human Church, and about human credulity and human tradition, at Epistles 57 and 60.

"What the author and teacher of this sacrifice did and taught." Rigaltius says: What He did, what He taught, the Gospels relate. Nor did Paul hand down anything else to his Corinthians. What Christ instituted at the supper, Christians afterwards called a sacrifice, and the ministers of the sacred supper, priests.

"And let nothing else be done by us than what the Lord first did for us." Rigaltius says: In this same Epistle he will say: "But if it is not permitted to loosen even the least of the Lord's commandments, how much more is it not lawful to infringe things so great, so weighty, so pertaining to the sacrament of the Lord's passion itself and of our redemption, or to change them by human tradition into something other than what was divinely instituted?"

"Nor can His blood be seen to be in the cup." Rigaltius says: So Tertullian, in the book On Prayer, "His body is reckoned to be in the bread." And Cyprian himself shortly after, "the cup by which the blood of Christ is shown," where he speaks of water: which, as for Christ,

cannot express His blood. When he so often insists that the cup be mixed, his chief aim is that wine should not be lacking to the cup. For although, to win over the minds of the Aquarians and to uphold the custom received in the Church, Cyprian acknowledges that water is rightly used in the Eucharist, by which the Christian people is signified, and although he was of the opinion that Christ used ordinary wine, diluted, he nevertheless contends that everything must be strictly measured by the norm of the Lord's institution, namely that that should be done which Jesus Christ our Lord and God, the author and teacher of the sacrifice, not only did but taught. He repeats things like this here and there, adding that the images of the sacrifice of Christ are constituted in bread and wine.

Noah, drinking wine, expressed an image of the Lord's passion. Rigaltius says: The Fathers greatly indulged their own ingenuity wherever bread and wine occur in the Scriptures. That Noah bore a type of the redemption won through Christ is plainly established from 1 Pet. 3:21; and that, as a survivor of the waters of the deluge, he foreshadowed rather the saving waves of Baptism. What wonder, then, if a step is laid down towards the other sacrament of the Church as well? And if, since he fell asleep after drinking the wine, he is said to have prefigured the eucharistic cup and the Lord's death? Meanwhile, for the logic of the type to hold, it is necessary that the Lord drank wine no less than Noah did.

Melchizedek, King of Salem, brought forth bread and wine. Rigaltius says: the Septuagint translators, Gen. 14: "and Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth loaves and wine." The Complutensian edition: "brought forth loaves for him", as Ambrose also cited it, book 1, On Abraham: "And Melchizedek, King of Salem, brought forth loaves and wine to him." Tertullian, moreover, had said most plainly, Against the Jews: "Melchizedek offered bread and wine to Abraham himself as he returned from battle." Josephus: "to the army of Abraham", and in place of bread and wine, "a great abundance of provisions". The author of the Commentaries on Genesis which are attributed to Eucherius, book 11, no. 17: "Nor is it a wonder if Melchizedek went out to meet the victorious Abraham, and brought forth bread and wine for the refreshment both of him and of his fighting men." But what follows in the same commentaries concerning this story betrays the hand of an interpolator. Jean Mercier and Hugo Grotius admit that the opinion of those who think this was done with a sacrifice preceding is not improbable.

In the person of the Father. Not only does our Lord claim this psalm for Himself, Matt. 22:44 and elsewhere, but the Jews too acknowledge it here and there: Moses Haddarshan on Gen. 37:12; Midrash Tehillim on Ps. 2; R. Saadia Gaon on Dan. 7:13; Talmud, tractate Berakhot, ch. 5.

Making mention of the Apostles. By the servants who are said to have been sent, he understands the Apostles.

To the mixing-bowl. See what was said on book 2 To Quirinus, ch. 2. When he says that she mixed the wine, according to Jansenius's interpretation, this alone should be understood: that she served and prepared it.

Full and trodden down. The Septuagint has "of a full [vat], trodden down". Evidently they took פורה, which means "winepress", for a word of almost the same form which signifies an abundance of things and plenty from the fruits. St Jerome reads according to the sense of the Hebrew text: "I alone have trodden the winepress."

Do not, He says, remember the former things. He likewise interprets these words of Baptism, book 1 To Quirinus, ch. 12.

Christ, Who is the rock. Rigaltius says: "upon which Christ built His Church". And yet in very many places Cyprian transferred what is said of the rock to Simon, to whom Christ, on account of his correct pronouncement concerning the Son of God, gave the name Peter.

He taught by the example of His teaching that the cup is mixed by the joining of wine and water. Cyprian says below that what has been commanded is not observed by us unless we too do the same things that the Lord did, and, mixing the cup of the Lord in like manner, do not depart from the divine teaching. And he appears to press this point more strongly thereafter. Moreover, most writers of the ancient Church agree that the Lord, at His supper, gave to drink wine diluted with water. So Justin, Apology 2; Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus book 2, ch. 2. The Fathers of the Trullan council derive the custom from tradition, canon 32; but the surest indications of this matter, from the rites of the Jews,

are to be drawn. For it is fitting to believe that our Lord in this respect accommodated Himself to the customs received in the Church. For just as the Paschal reading is called הגדה, that is, announcement, so the Apostles are bidden to announce the death of the Lord, until He comes. They called the paschal lamb גופו של פסח, the body of the pasch; so the Lord says of the Eucharistic bread: This is My body. Just as also the father of the household in the celebration of the pasch breaks [the bread] when the blessing is finished, משלים הבדכה ואחר בן בוצע ("he completes the blessing and afterwards breaks"); likewise the Lord, having taken bread, after He had given thanks, broke it. Concerning the wine, moreover, the Hebrew doctors say that it made no difference whether the wine used was undiluted or diluted, בין חרש בין ישן בין חי בין המזג ("whether new or old, whether undiluted or mixed"), as is handed down in the Tosephos. Hence Aquinas, part 3, question 74, article 7, and question 83, article 6, reply to 4, and Bonaventure on the Sentences book 4, distinction 11, part 2, question 3, rightly say that the admixture of water is not of the necessity or of the integrity of the sacrament. The Armenians indeed were in the heresy that water ought to be wholly absent from the wine in the Eucharist, and they were condemned by the Quinisext synod. Although the Roman Church seems to decree that the chalice of the blood of Christ the Lord is to be consecrated not in pure water, nor in pure wine, or without water, but in wine mixed with water, yet if the matter is attentively considered, they would have it consecrated in wine alone; for they direct that the water be added in a very small quantity, in the words of Eugenius 'most sparing', and that some interval pass between the mixing and the consecration, so that the water may at length be converted into wine. See the Roman Catechism ch. 4, para. 17, and the Roman Sacerdotale part 1, tract 19, ch. 2. And in this matter the testimony of Aristotle is customarily adduced, On Generation and Corruption book 1, last chapter, where he says that wine thrown in a very small quantity into water passes into water: "the one changes into the prevailing one; as a drop of wine is not mixed with ten thousand measures of water, for its form is dissolved and it changes into the whole of the water." Thus the Roman Church acknowledges not merely a single transubstantiation in the Eucharist, but a double one. Further, the practice of the Greek Church deserves to be observed, of which Balsamon says: "before the holy chalice is sanctified, the hot water is not put into the union, but after the sanctification." And therefore the water, in their view, follows upon that sacred mystery and does not enter into it.

Shall be poured out. Cyprian favours the reading of those manuscripts which have ἐκχυθησόμενον ("which shall be poured out").

The creature of the vine. γεννήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου ("of the produce of the vine"). The Vulgate version has kept the word itself: I will not drink from now on of this produce of the vine.

To pervert the Gospel of Christ. μεταστρέψαι ("to turn about"). Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine likewise use that word.

Thy inebriating cup. The Septuagint has ποτήριόν σου μεθύσκον, ὡσεὶ κράτιστον ("Thy inebriating cup, as the most excellent"). Inebriating, like a most generous wine. In the Hebrew it is כוסי ("my cup"), and Jerome, to Sunnias and Fretela, says that the Septuagint wrote ποτήριόν μου ("my cup").

From this worldly taste. Rigault says: He calls the taste of common and profane wine a worldly taste, and to it he opposes the divine understanding, so that it is understood no longer as wine but as the blood of the Lord.

By this common wine the mind is loosened. Rigault says: He calls common wine that which has not yet been sanctified or consecrated into the blood of Christ. And so presently he will oppose the blood of the Lord to this common wine. He no longer calls it wine, but blood.

All sadness is laid aside. We have often pointed out that in Cyprian exponi is the same as to be taken out of the way.

He was weighed down by distressing sins. Rigault says: Thus above, in Letter 56, he said: to be often pressed by distressing afflictions.

We see that the people is understood in the water. Bertram, in his book On the Body and Blood of the Lord, which was written about the middle of the ninth century, argues from these words as follows. It must also be considered (he says) that in that bread not only the body of Christ but also the body of the people believing in Him is figured, which is why it is made of many grains of wheat; because the body of the believing people, out of many,

through the word of Christ, faithful [people], is joined together; wherefore, just as in the mystery of the bread that body of Christ is received, so also in the mystery the members of the believing people are signified; and just as that bread is called the body of the believers not bodily but spiritually, so too the body of Christ must be understood not bodily but spiritually. So also in the wine, which is called the blood of Christ, water is ordered to be mixed, and the one is not permitted to be offered without the other; because neither the people without Christ, nor Christ without the people, just as neither the head without the body, nor the body without the head, is able to exist. Finally, the water in the sacrament bears the origin of the people: accordingly, if that wine, sanctified through the office of the ministers, is bodily converted into the blood of Christ, the water also, which is mixed in along with it, must be bodily converted into the blood of the believing people. For where there is one sanctification, there is consequently one operation; and where the reasoning is equal, an equal mystery also follows. But we see that in the water nothing has been converted according to the body; consequently, therefore, in the wine also nothing is shown bodily. Whatever is signified in the water concerning the body of the people is received spiritually; therefore whatever is intimated in the wine concerning the blood of Christ must be received spiritually.

But in the wine it shows the blood of Christ. Rigault says: Above in this Epistle, The wine by which the blood of Christ is shown. And here a little after, where it treats of the water: by which very sacrament also the people is shown to be united. "Is shown", in the sense in which he said in this very place: we see that by the water the people is understood. See Epistle 69.

Just as neither can the wine alone. That is, while the usage received in the Church remains. But it should be noted that what is said to contain a mystery in itself does not always remain perpetually fixed and sacred in the Church. Formerly the faithful used a rather large loaf in the Eucharist, so that all who became partakers of it might be shown to be one bread, and to be endowed with communion of the broken body of the Lord. Afterwards it came into use that small wafers were employed, yet the mystery has not perished; for these represent small coins, the price of the Lord's body. Thus in this very Epistle our author relates that the Eucharist was first celebrated by the Lord at night, but this too not without a mystery, so that by the very hour of the sacrifice He might show the evening of the world, as it is written in Exodus: And all the multitude of the synagogue of the children of Israel shall kill it at evening. He adds further: But we celebrate the resurrection of the Lord in the morning: whence also it will be evident that we wish to walk in the light of Christ. Further, by decree of Eugenius, the Roman Pontiff, water is ordered to be mixed into the chalice to be consecrated in a moderate quantity; thus by the excess of the wine over the quantity of the water is signified the excess of the merits of Christ the Lord, and of His dignity, over human nature and over the sins of the human race. But no less happily, when unmixed wine is used, it is shown that we are saved by the merits and blood of Christ alone. Likewise also the Greeks pour hot water into the consecrated chalice, to signify, as Balsamon interprets it on canon 32 of the Council in Trullo, that the things that flowed from the holy side of our Lord Jesus Christ are life-giving. The Latins use cold, to testify that Christ was truly dead, and that we are saved only by His death. The same thing happened in Baptism: formerly a threefold immersion was required, so that the account of the Holy Trinity might be preserved; then a single one succeeded, so that we might profess the one God acknowledged by us. Immersion also seemed necessary, so that we might be seen to be buried with Christ in Baptism; then we are sprinkled with water, so that we may be recognized as purified by the sprinkling of His blood. In like manner, a concord of milk and honey was added to the baptismal water, which were for that reason offered at the altar with wine and ears of grain; these nevertheless afterwards fell into disuse by decrees of the canons, the mystery of the sacrament meanwhile remaining intact.

In the sacrifice which Christ offered. Rigault says: in the sacrifice Christ offered Himself to the Father: in the sacrament of His sacrifice He made bread and wine His body, and gave it to His disciples as they were at supper. For that which the Lord said stands fixed: My flesh is truly food, and My blood is truly drink. Assuredly, if indeed worthily

communicating, they might through faith become partakers of His body and blood, and be transformed unto eternal life.

None but Christ is to be followed. Christ alone is to be heard. Rigaltius says: The safest rule for keeping traditions, which Cyprian presses home in very many places in this Epistle. For at the beginning he speaks thus: Let nothing else be done by us than what the Lord first did for us. And in this very place: It is not lawful to break the sacrament of our redemption, or to change it by human tradition into anything other than what was divinely instituted. And: For we ought not to follow the custom of man, but the truth of God. Yet the same Cyprian himself will say in this very Epistle: But the Lord offered the mixed cup not in the morning but after supper: must we then celebrate the Lord's [Supper] after supper? Tertullian's book On the Crown was written against the Psychics and the Gnostics. It was a tenet of theirs that even where tradition was pleaded, written authority must be demanded. And so against them he sets out to argue that very many traditions, concerning both Baptism and the Eucharist, had been received without written authority, and he declares that obedience is owed to them. Thus each man trims his sails to his own opinion and cause.

In the morning sacrifices. Rigaltius says: Tertullian [has], also in gatherings before daybreak. They celebrated the Eucharist in the hours before daybreak, because if they had put it off to the time of supper, the people could not have been called together to the meal. This is what the words a little further on in Cyprian hint at. But Tertullian, when he says that the Eucharist was celebrated also in gatherings before daybreak, admits that it was also celebrated at mealtime.

By the taste of the wine. Tertullian sets out the whole matter in Book 2 To his Wife, chapter 5. The more you take care to hide these things, the more suspicious you will make them, and the more they will be a prey to pagan curiosity. Will you escape notice when you sign your bed, when you sign your body, when you blow away something unclean, when you even rise in the night to pray? And will you not seem to be working some magic? Will your husband not know what you secretly taste before all food? And if he knows it is bread, does he not believe it to be what it is said to be? In fact morning breakfasts were made from a draught of unmixed wine, whence among the Greeks ἀκρατίζεσθαι is to breakfast, and ἀκράτισμα the taking of breakfast; but these things did not concern women, for whom to have tasted wine was like a capital crime. The reading on which the most approved manuscripts, the Lambeth, the York, the second Bodleian, the Lincoln, the Benedictine and the London, agree seems by no means to be despised, especially since it answers most closely to Tertullian's meaning. Where an unbelieving conscience is spoken of there, Septimius put the conscience of another, the husband. But I change nothing.

When we come to sup, we offer the mixed cup. It is clear from this that these Aquarians had not imbibed the error of the Manichaeans, Tatianists or Helcesaites, so as to hold that wine, as the devil's blood, was altogether to be abhorred: for these words are spoken in the person of those who offered with water alone only early in the morning. It is clear also that the Eucharist, although taken in the hours before daybreak, was customarily distributed in the evening as well; of which Tertullian is an ample witness, On the Crown, chapter 3: We receive the sacrament of the Eucharist at mealtime from the hand of those who preside. And elsewhere he advises that it be received when the stations are ended. The custom of communicating after supper lasted long in the Church; for Socrates says in Book 5, chapter 22: The Egyptians who are neighbours of the Alexandrians, and those who inhabit the Thebaid, hold assemblies on the Sabbath, but do not partake of the mysteries as is the custom for Christians. For after feasting and filling themselves with all kinds of food, they make the offering towards evening and partake of the mysteries.

The truth of the sacrament. Rigaltius says: The mixed cup and with all the brotherhood present. So that we may truly observe all that Christ handed down, by offering the mixed cup both at mealtime and with all the brotherhood present.

But the Lord offered the mixed cup not in the morning but after supper. Must we then celebrate the Lord's [Supper] after supper? Rigaltius says: Above he said that it is wrong to break things pertaining to the very sacrament of the Lord's ordinance, or to change it by human tradition into anything other than what was divinely instituted. Here