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

however, he ingeniously devises causes and reasons why we ought not to celebrate the Lord's [Supper] after supper, although the Lord instituted [it] after supper. Someone will say that the causes or reasons which Cyprian adduces are spiritual and divine; namely, that Christ instituted the memorial of His passion, which took place towards the evening of the day, after evening, whereas we celebrate in the morning the resurrection of the Lord, accomplished by the Lord Himself at the morning hour; and that consequently what was divinely instituted does not appear to have been changed by human tradition or presumption. That something concerning this sacrament had already been changed in the age of Tertullian is gathered, and that the Sacrament of the body of Christ was celebrated not only in the evening, at the time of the meal, but also in the hours before dawn, these words in the book On the Crown prove: The sacrament of the Eucharist, commanded by the Lord at the time of the meal, we take even in the hours before dawn. Yet human presumption had not yet so far prevailed that it was not also taken at the time of the meal. But that a little later it prevailed entirely is plain from what Cyprian relates in this Letter. Indeed Augustine says that it pleased the Holy Spirit, not on account of the reasons which Cyprian brought forward, but so that, in honour of so great a Sacrament, the Lord's body should enter the mouth of a Christian before other foods. For it is for this reason, he says, that this custom is observed throughout the whole world. And yet the same [Augustine] observes that some are pleased by a certain probable reason, that on one fixed day in the year, the day on which the Lord gave the supper itself, as for a more notable commemoration, it may be permitted for the body and blood of the Lord to be offered and received after food. Then that most holy man concludes his discussion, as though doubtful and uncertain, thus: Therefore we compel no one to dine before that Lord's supper, but neither do we dare to contradict anyone. That discussion is found in Letter 118, where this too may be observed, that on the day on which the Lord gave the supper itself almost all people in very many places bathed. Accordingly Augustine adds: And because some also keep the fast, it is offered in the morning on account of those who dine, since they cannot endure fasting and bathing together; but in the evening, on account of those who fast

For it is the passion of the Lord. The remembrance (anamnesis) of it. Luke 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:24-25.

If anyone in simplicity has not observed this. Rigault says: So he will say below, towards the end of the Letter: That we erred in simplicity.

His second coming draws near. Rigault says: Above he said, the setting of the age. Letter 58.

Illuminates more. Not through the dreams of Montanus and his spokesmen-prophets, as Tertullian would have said, but through the admonitions of Christ and the Apostles diligently observed.

The truth of the Lord's tradition. Rigault says: Above he said, the truth of the sacrament; that is, namely, the very thing which the Lord taught and did.

Letter 64.

To brother Fidus. Pamelius says: In what place Fidus was bishop is not established; yet it is likely that he was near the bishopric of Therapius, who in the synod is surnamed "of Bulla": see Suffrage 61 of the Council of Carthage.

Letter 65.

To Epictetus. Pamelius says: That he was bishop of Assuras is likely; but since in the synod another bishop of Assuras, Victor by name, gave his opinion, Epictetus seems to have died before the synod. See Suffrage 68 of the Council of Carthage.

Fortunatianus, formerly bishop among you. Pamelius says: Fortunatianus had indeed been their bishop, but because he had lapsed he had already been deprived of the bishopric; and that he was also of the faction of Novatian is established from what follows. He is said to wish to act as one unimpaired, as if, having lapsed and been restored to the communion of the Church after completing penance, he had thus been restored to his full former state, or it were permitted him to take up the government of the same [church] as if by right of postliminy. But it seems that penance was not granted to Fortunatianus, indeed not even sought; so far was it from having been completed.

Over these things therefore I shall not be angry. The Seventy read ἐπὶ τούτοις ὀργισθήσομαι ("at these things I shall be angry"), with πᾶσι ("all") omitted.

I will not release them. Rigaltius says: They will remain bound; not "it will be remitted to them", not "they will be absolved"; οὐ μὴ ἀνήσω αὐτούς ("I will by no means let them go"). This text is quite often cited in the same form.

Lest perhaps he forsake. The Seventy read ἀναλλάξῃ ("exchange"). Aquila, more in keeping with the sense of the sacred text, has διακόψῃ ("cut off"), and Symmachus διαφθείρῃ ("destroy"). The Seventy render this word at 1 Sam. 25:10 by ἀναχωρέω ("withdraw"). Elsewhere they commonly express it by διακόπτω ("cut through"), καθαιρέω ("pull down") and verbs synonymous with these.

The altar of the Holy. The Seventy have πρὸς τὸ θυσιαστήριον τοῦ ἁγίου, καὶ οὐκ ἐπάξονται ἐφ' ἑαυτοὺς ἁμαρτίαν, ἵνα μὴ ἀποθάνωσι ("to the altar of the holy place, and they shall not bring sin upon themselves, so that they may not die"). Until now the editors supposed that Exod. 30:20 was meant, and this error has given rise to others.

Although. That is, "however much" or "granted that", "thus has the deep gloom of the encroaching darkness blinded the hearts of some"; for no answering clause follows here.

They long for gifts and offerings and gains. Rigaltius says: So already in Cyprian's age wicked priests had taken for themselves a profit, or a catch, from the offerings of the faithful. Augustine, book 4 On Baptism, against the Donatists. Sulpicius Severus, History, book 1, complained most openly that this most foul plague had overrun later generations. "Sitting," he says, "they wait for gifts, and they hold every honour of life corrupted by payment, while they display their holiness as if it were for sale."

The laity lapsed: the lapse of the laity. For this sense suits Cyprian's matter better.

The offering to be sanctified. Rigaltius says: The offering is sanctified when it becomes the body of Christ, which is called the Holy without qualification. We have noted this in Tertullian, the book On Prayer: "From the mouth with which you have uttered Amen over the Holy." And in the book On the Prescription of Heretics: "Lest he should throw the holy thing to the dogs." Later, however, it became customary to say "consecration" instead of "sanctification", because people commonly thought that the word for making sacred signified something more excellent than sanctification. In what sense the elements in the Eucharist are, and are called, the body of Christ, we have said quite often.

When not even the offering can be sanctified there. Rigaltius says: Against Cyprian's opinion Pamelius sets the opinion of Augustine, who lays down that sacraments administered by impious and criminal bishops or presbyters are valid, and indeed that baptisms conferred by heretics are valid too. Tractate 5 on John, and books 6 and 7 against the Donatists. This matter needs a distinction concerning the fact that was brought into dispute. For in this place Cyprian is dealing with a certain Fortunatianus, bishop of Assurae, who through idolatry had fallen from the faith, and therefore from the episcopate, the priesthood and the Church. He was no longer reckoned a Christian, much less a presbyter or priest, much less a bishop. Under the discipline in force in Cyprian's time, if he had obtained a period of penance, then once it was completed and lawful satisfaction made, he could indeed be received into Christian communion, but by no means to the episcopate, nor to the rank of any priesthood in the Church. The Church was restored to the lapsed man, but not his place and not his rank, for he had lost his place, that is, his rank. He was therefore brought back among the people, that is, among the laity, in such a way that no character or power of the priesthood remained with him. In a case of idolatry of this kind, Cyprian says that Fortunatianus could not sanctify any offerings, prayers or petitions. Fortunatianus had become a schismatic after being an idolater. Without having obtained penance he was claiming episcopal rank for himself, and he had proudly and stubbornly gathered a little flock. The reason is that he was so far outside the Church that he no longer belonged to Christ, Whom he had denied by sacrificing to idols. He had scraped off the character of Christ, having had the character of Jupiter, the antichrist, put over it. From the same discipline comes the fact that the same Cyprian denies that those baptized by heretics or schismatics have received the Baptism of Christ. He says that such ministers of the Sacraments, ministering outside the Church, minister nothing. His argument, of course, is this: since the Church is one, those who are not in that one Church are in none, and they have no capacity by which they could receive anything from that one Church to communicate or confer once received. To establish and ratify such doctrines, in an age most grievously afflicted by the harassments of the secular powers and by the factions of the Church's ministers, seemed good to Cyprian and to the other

fellow bishops, presbyters and deacons throughout Africa, Numidia and Mauretania, so that they might make for themselves a people more steadfast in the Christian faith, and have ministers more loving of ecclesiastical peace and unity. This, then, was the target at which the most holy Fathers of that time bent all the resources of the Scriptures. Then, in the age next after them, when [the Church] either had better heathens, that is, men less hostile to the Christian name, or obtained better ministers, discipline began to be relaxed, and little by little the subtlety of argument, zealous for the Catholic name, began to be sharpened. And so under Augustine a more humane opinion found favour, which made the case of heretics or schismatics far different from that of idolaters For those who departed from the Catholic sense were indeed said to be cut off from the Church, but yet in such a state that if, peace having been made, they returned to the Catholic [Church], they were reckoned, as if by right of postliminium, never to have gone away, and so recovered their former place in the Church: for they had not denied the head of the Church, namely Christ, as the idolaters had: and therefore also the baptisms which they had administered in schism were not made void. Hence, then, those words of Augustine: I grant that heretics are wicked; but the heretics gave the Baptism of Christ. And: So, then, those whom a drunkard baptized, those whom a murderer baptized, those whom an adulterer baptized, if it was the Baptism of Christ, Christ baptized. And: Because the Sacrament is so holy that it is not polluted even when a murderer shows it. The same Augustine, Epist. 166, cites in support of this opinion of his the words of Constantine. Mark, he says, what the words of the emperor contain: For if in those who have first been initiated the sanctity of baptism is judged weak for this reason, that those from whom it is received are thought to be sinners, then the sacrament handed down will have to be renewed as often as the administrator of the conferred Baptism has been found unworthy, and our faith will depend not on the choice of our own will, nor on the grace of the divine gift, but on the merits of priests and the quality of clerics.

The year 254.

Letter 66.

Cyprian, also called Thascius. Pamelius says: It seems to me that Cyprian wished to play the Cretan with a Cretan: and since Florentius had set his own name in front with a praenomen, he did the very same. This praenomen itself is moreover to be found in the Acts of his passion, and in Pontius the deacon. I should indeed believe that Pupianus begrudged Cyprian the name of Caecilius, which he received from the presbyter of good memory by whom he had been converted to the faith; and in contempt greeted him with the title of Thascius, by which he was known among the gentiles.

I [thought] you, brother. Rigaltius says: Though Florentius was already a schismatic, he nonetheless calls him brother, just as Optatus [calls] the Donatists, rebuking them because they themselves would not call the Catholics brothers: They do not wish, he says, to be called our brothers: yet we cannot depart from the fear of God, we whom the Holy Spirit exhorts through the prophet Isaiah, saying: You who fear the name of the Lord, hear the name of the Lord: Those who hold you in hatred and curse you, and do not wish to be called our brothers, you nevertheless say to them: You are our brothers. They are therefore without doubt brothers, although not good ones. The name of brotherhood is not laid aside even when sin intervenes.

The dignity of your martyrdom. Rigaltius says: Before the schism Florentius was in communion with Cyprian, and in the persecution he had indeed been advanced to the highest sublimity of martyrdom, as Cyprian says below.

Unworthy and unchaste. Rigaltius says: These words show clearly enough what sort of reproaches Florentius had poured out against Cyprian, unspeakable and shameful, and accursed even to the gentiles.

In our own proclamations. Rigaltius says: When we ourselves proclaim and say something about ourselves, let the proclaimer be one person, the witness another Let the proclaimer and the witness not be the same. No one bearing witness to himself is worthy of belief.

My testimony is not true. Rigaltius says: It is not lawful, nor just. Horace: It is right that each should measure himself by his own rule and foot.

So you leap upon the priest. This passage of the holy text and the note on the word incitas have been dealt with quite often. Moreover we have observed that it is Cyprian's custom to draw out the testimonies of the Scriptures in heaps, as from an armoury. See what was said on Ep. 3 and 59.

Bishop of the Christians. Rigaltius says: Above, in Epist. 59, he said, with the name of his episcopate applied and joined to it. Therefore he was proscribed because he was a bishop. For this reason only: not because he was bishop of Carthage, but because he was bishop of the Christians.

Nor do I boast of these things, but I bring them forward in grief. Rigaltius says: Epist. 59: For I speak provoked, I speak grieving, I speak compelled, etc.

A new people of believers. Heathens converted to the faith, to whom Baptism was not granted without the consent of the bishop, as Ignatius reports.

Bees have a king. Rigaltius says: The same, book On Idolatry. The bees have one king, and in flocks there is one leader, and in herds one ruler. Such subtleties are customarily handled in the schools, also concerning the corncrake as leader of each flock of quails, and concerning cranes. For they too choose a leader to follow, one who with neck held high may look ahead, and other things of this kind. From which this is gathered: that single hives, single flocks, single herds, single troops each have their own king, leader, ruler, and none an ecumenical one.

Robbers of the contractor. Rigaltius says: By whom they were hired for some crime. He calls the master of a faction manceps.

To the sight of God. From the prerogative of martyrdom, of which we have spoken elsewhere.

When they withdrew from the midst. Rigaltius says: When the synod was dissolved, departing after the hand had been laid on me. But since peace prevailed in the Church at the time when Cyprian was being promoted to the episcopate, these words ought rather to be understood of the Decian persecution.

Confessors put to the question. Rigaltius says: From quaestio. So Lucian the martyr, in Epist. 21, said: Paulus from the question. It is to be observed here that confessors are said first to be put to the question, then tortured. For, once a hearing has been granted, the questioning is held first, and then torments are applied.

That the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop. It makes entirely for the unity of the Church that the bishop has neither lapsed through heresy or idolatry, nor been excluded from the right of communion for some other offence? And that the people likewise cleave to their bishop, since he who is not with the bishop is certainly not in the Church, nor with Christ. These things indeed seem to have been taken from Ignatius the God-bearer.

With a pure and spotless mouth I offer sacrifices unceasingly. Rigaltius says: Prayers from a sincere heart, from a pure and chaste conscience.

For I remember what has already been shown to me. Rigaltius says: Here too he makes use of showings and visions, a weapon for crushing adversaries that is most powerful, especially in the hand of Cyprian, a most excellent and godly man, but otherwise empty and futile. For a crafty rhetorician and a cunning sophist alike could devise visions of this kind most suited to his cause, and deceive the unwary and the simple. But since Pupianus had believed that credence should be given to rumours, it is fair that he should not be angry with Cyprian for believing dreams.

And afterwards a dreamer. He alludes to the words of the mocking brothers: then it will appear what his dreams profit him.

On the day of judgement both will be read aloud before the tribunal of Christ. According to the opinion of Plato, a great year will one day restore the deeds done on the earth; but in truth the great and manifest day of the Lord, Acts 2:20, will bring back the restoration of all things done in the past, Acts 3:21. Therefore very many learned men believed that a thousand years were required for so strict an examination. But however the matter of the reading of these letters may turn out, it is most certain that an account must be rendered of both; since of every idle word, as the Lord said, Matt. 12:36.