1. Anon., Didache, 7.3 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
| 12. But let every one that comes in the name of the Lord be received, and afterward you shall prove and know him; for you shall have understanding right and left. If he who comes is a wayfarer, assist him as far as you are able; but he shall not remain with you, except for two or three days, if need be. But if he wills to abide with you, being an artisan, let him work and eat; 2 Thessalonians 3:10 but if he has no trade, according to your understanding see to it that, as a Christian, he shall not live with you idle. But if he wills not to do, he is a Christ-monger. Watch that you keep aloof from such. |
|
2. New Testament, 1 John, 2.22, 2.29 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 2.22. Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the Antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. 2.29. If you know that he is righteous, you know that everyone who practices righteousness is born of him. |
|
3. New Testament, 1 Corinthians, 5.10-5.11, 6.9-6.10 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 5.10. yet not at all meaning with the sexual sinners of this world, orwith the covetous and extortioners, or with idolaters; for then youwould have to leave the world. 5.11. But as it is, I wrote to you notto associate with anyone who is called a brother who is a sexualsinner, or covetous, or an idolater, or a slanderer, or a drunkard, oran extortioner. Don't even eat with such a person. 6.9. Or don't you know that the unrighteouswill not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't be deceived. Neither thesexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes,nor homosexuals 6.10. nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, norslanderers, nor extortioners, will inherit the Kingdom of God. |
|
4. New Testament, Galatians, 5.19-5.21 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 5.19. Now the works of the fleshare obvious, which are: adultery, sexual immorality, uncleanness,lustfulness 5.20. idolatry, sorcery, hatred, strife, jealousies,outbursts of anger, rivalries, divisions, heresies 5.21. envyings,murders, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these; of which Iforewarn you, even as I also forewarned you, that those who practicesuch things will not inherit the Kingdom of God. |
|
5. New Testament, John, 1.12-1.13, 1.45-1.46, 3.5, 4.10-4.14, 7.18, 18.5, 18.7, 19.19 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 1.12. But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become God's children, to those who believe in his name: 1.13. who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 1.45. Philip found Nathanael, and said to him, "We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, wrote: Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. 1.46. Nathanael said to him, "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?"Philip said to him, "Come and see. 3.5. Jesus answered, "Most assuredly I tell you, unless one is born of water and spirit, he can't enter into the Kingdom of God! 4.10. Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, 'Give me a drink,' you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water. 4.11. The woman said to him, "Sir, you have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep. From where then have you that living water? 4.12. Are you greater than our father, Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank of it himself, as did his sons, and his cattle? 4.13. Jesus answered her, "Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again 4.14. but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never thirst again; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life. 7.18. He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory, but he who seeks the glory of him who sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him. 18.5. They answered him, "Jesus of Nazareth."Jesus said to them, "I AM."Judas also, who betrayed him, was standing with them. 18.7. Again therefore he asked them, "Who are you looking for?"They said, "Jesus of Nazareth. 19.19. Pilate wrote a title also, and put it on the cross. There was written, "JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. |
|
6. New Testament, Matthew, 28.19 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 28.19. Go, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit |
|
7. Clement of Alexandria, Christ The Educator, (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
|
8. Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies, 2.13.56.1 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
|
9. Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition, 21.22 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
|
10. Irenaeus, Refutation of All Heresies, 1.21.3, 1.25.4-1.25.6, 1.28.1, 1.31.1-1.31.2, 3.1.1 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
|
11. Justin, First Apology, 61.2 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
12. Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, 2.4 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
13. Tertullian, Against Marcion, 2.18, 3.22 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 2.18. But what parts of the law can I defend as good with a greater confidence than those which heresy has shown such a longing for?- as the statute of retaliation, requiring eye for eye, tooth for tooth, and stripe for stripe. Exodus 21:24 Now there is not here any smack of a permission to mutual injury; but rather, on the whole, a provision for restraining violence. To a people which was very obdurate, and wanting in faith towards God, it might seem tedious, and even incredible, to expect from God that vengeance which was subsequently to be declared by the prophet: Vengeance is mine; I will repay, says the Lord. Therefore, in the meanwhile, the commission of wrong was to be checked by the fear of a retribution immediately to happen; and so the permission of this retribution was to be the prohibition of provocation, that a stop might thus be put to all hot-blooded injury, while by the permission of the second the first is prevented by fear, and by this deterring of the first the second fails to be committed. By the same law another result is also obtained, even the more ready kindling of the fear of retaliation by reason of the very savour of passion which is in it. There is no more bitter thing, than to endure the very suffering which you have inflicted upon others. When, again, the law took somewhat away from men's food, by pronouncing unclean certain animals which were once blessed, you should understand this to be a measure for encouraging continence, and recognise in it a bridle imposed on that appetite which, while eating angels' food, craved after the cucumbers and melons of the Egyptians. Recognise also therein a precaution against those companions of the appetite, even lust and luxury, which are usually chilled by the chastening of the appetite. For the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play. Exodus 32:6 Furthermore, that an eager wish for money might be restrained, so far as it is caused by the need of food, the desire for costly meat and drink was taken out of their power. Lastly, in order that man might be more readily educated by God for fasting, he was accustomed to such articles of food as were neither plentiful nor sumptuous, and not likely to pamper the appetite of the luxurious. of course the Creator deserved all the greater blame, because it was from His own people that He took away food, rather than from the more ungrateful Marcionites. As for the burdensome sacrifices also, and the troublesome scrupulousness of their ceremonies and oblations, no one should blame them, as if God specially required them for Himself: for He plainly asks, To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? and, Who has required them at your hand? Isaiah 1:11-12 But he should see herein a careful provision on God's part, which showed His wish to bind to His own religion a people who were prone to idolatry and transgression by that kind of services wherein consisted the superstition of that period; that He might call them away therefrom, while requesting it to be performed to Himself, as if He desired that no sin should be committed in making idols. 3.22. You have the work of the apostles also predicted: How beautiful are the feet of them which preach the gospel of peace, which bring good tidings of good, not of war nor evil tidings. In response to which is the psalm, Their sound is gone through all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world; that is, the words of them who carry round about the law that proceeded from Sion and the Lord's word from Jerusalem, in order that that might come to pass which was written: They who were far from my righteousness, have come near to my righteousness and truth. When the apostles girded their loins for this business, they renounced the elders and rulers and priests of the Jews. Well, says he, but was it not above all things that they might preach the other god? Rather (that they might preach) that very self-same God, whose scripture they were with all their might fulfilling! Depart, depart, exclaims Isaiah; go out from thence, and touch not the unclean thing, that is blasphemy against Christ; Go out of the midst of her, even of the synagogue. Be separate who bear the vessels of the Lord. Isaiah 52:11 For already had the Lord, according to the preceding words (of the prophet), revealed His Holy One with His arm, that is to say, Christ by His mighty power, in the eyes of the nations, so that all the nations and the utmost parts of the earth have seen the salvation, which was from God. By thus departing from Judaism itself, when they exchanged the obligations and burdens of the law for the liberty of the gospel, they were fulfilling the psalm, Let us burst their bonds asunder, and cast away their yoke from us; and this indeed (they did) after that the heathen raged, and the people imagined vain devices; after that the kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers took their counsel together against the Lord, and against His Christ. What did the apostles thereupon suffer? You answer: Every sort of iniquitous persecutions, from men that belonged indeed to that Creator who was the adversary of Him whom they were preaching. Then why does the Creator, if an adversary of Christ, not only predict that the apostles should incur this suffering, but even express His displeasure thereat? For He ought neither to predict the course of the other god, whom, as you contend, He knew not, nor to have expressed displeasure at that which He had taken care to bring about. See how the righteous perishes, and no man lays it to heart; and how merciful men are taken away, and no man considers. For the righteous man has been removed from the evil person. Isaiah 57:1 Who is this but Christ? Come, say they, let us take away the righteous, because He is not for our turn, (and He is clean contrary to our doings). Wisdom 2:12 Premising, therefore, and likewise subjoining the fact that Christ suffered, He foretold that His just ones should suffer equally with Him - both the apostles and all the faithful in succession; and He signed them with that very seal of which Ezekiel spoke: The Lord said to me, Go through the gate, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set the mark Tau upon the foreheads of the men. Now the Greek letter Tau and our own letter T is the very form of the cross, which He predicted would be the sign on our foreheads in the true Catholic Jerusalem, in which, according to the twenty-first Psalm, the brethren of Christ or children of God would ascribe glory to God the Father, in the person of Christ Himself addressing His Father; I will declare Your name unto my brethren; in the midst of the congregation will I sing praise unto You. For that which had to come to pass in our day in His name, and by His Spirit, He rightly foretold would be of Him. And a little afterwards He says: My praise shall be of You in the great congregation. In the sixty-seventh Psalm He says again: In the congregations bless the Lord God. So that with this agrees also the prophecy of Malachi: I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; neither will I accept your offerings: for from the rising of the sun, even unto the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place sacrifice shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering Malachi 1:10-11 - such as the ascription of glory, and blessing, and praise, and hymns. Now, inasmuch as all these things are also found among you, and the sign upon the forehead, and the sacraments of the church, and the offerings of the pure sacrifice, you ought now to burst forth, and declare that the Spirit of the Creator prophesied of your Christ. |
|
14. Tertullian, Apology, 39 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 39. I shall at once go on, then, to exhibit the peculiarities of the Christian society, that, as I have refuted the evil charged against it, I may point out its positive good. We are a body knit together as such by a common religious profession, by unity of discipline, and by the bond of a common hope. We meet together as an assembly and congregation, that, offering up prayer to God as with united force, we may wrestle with Him in our supplications. This violence God delights in. We pray, too, for the emperors, for their ministers and for all in authority, for the welfare of the world, for the prevalence of peace, for the delay of the final consummation. We assemble to read our sacred writings, if any peculiarity of the times makes either forewarning or reminiscence needful. However it be in that respect, with the sacred words we nourish our faith, we animate our hope, we make our confidence more steadfast; and no less by inculcations of God's precepts we confirm good habits. In the same place also exhortations are made, rebukes and sacred censures are administered. For with a great gravity is the work of judging carried on among us, as befits those who feel assured that they are in the sight of God; and you have the most notable example of judgment to come when any one has sinned so grievously as to require his severance from us in prayer, in the congregation and in all sacred intercourse. The tried men of our elders preside over us, obtaining that honour not by purchase, but by established character. There is no buying and selling of any sort in the things of God. Though we have our treasure chest, it is not made up of purchase-money, as of a religion that has its price. On the monthly day, if he likes, each puts in a small donation; but only if it be his pleasure, and only if he be able: for there is no compulsion; all is voluntary. These gifts are, as it were, piety's deposit fund. For they are not taken thence and spent on feasts, and drinking-bouts, and eating-houses, but to support and bury poor people, to supply the wants of boys and girls destitute of means and parents, and of old persons confined now to the house; such, too, as have suffered shipwreck; and if there happen to be any in the mines, or banished to the islands, or shut up in the prisons, for nothing but their fidelity to the cause of God's Church, they become the nurslings of their confession. But it is mainly the deeds of a love so noble that lead many to put a brand upon us. See, they say, how they love one another, for themselves are animated by mutual hatred; how they are ready even to die for one another, for they themselves will sooner put to death. And they are angry with us, too, because we call each other brethren; for no other reason, as I think, than because among themselves names of consanguinity are assumed in mere pretence of affection. But we are your brethren as well, by the law of our common mother nature, though you are hardly men, because brothers so unkind. At the same time, how much more fittingly they are called and counted brothers who have been led to the knowledge of God as their common Father, who have drunk in one spirit of holiness, who from the same womb of a common ignorance have agonized into the same light of truth! But on this very account, perhaps, we are regarded as having less claim to be held true brothers, that no tragedy makes a noise about our brotherhood, or that the family possessions, which generally destroy brotherhood among you, create fraternal bonds among us. One in mind and soul, we do not hesitate to share our earthly goods with one another. All things are common among us but our wives. We give up our community where it is practised alone by others, who not only take possession of the wives of their friends, but most tolerantly also accommodate their friends with theirs, following the example, I believe, of those wise men of ancient times, the Greek Socrates and the Roman Cato, who shared with their friends the wives whom they had married, it seems for the sake of progeny both to themselves and to others; whether in this acting against their partners' wishes, I am not able to say. Why should they have any care over their chastity, when their husbands so readily bestowed it away? O noble example of Attic wisdom, of Roman gravity - the philosopher and the censor playing pimps! What wonder if that great love of Christians towards one another is desecrated by you! For you abuse also our humble feasts, on the ground that they are extravagant as well as infamously wicked. To us, it seems, applies the saying of Diogenes: The people of Megara feast as though they were going to die on the morrow; they build as though they were never to die! But one sees more readily the mote in another's eye than the beam in his own. Why, the very air is soured with the eructations of so many tribes, and curi, and decuri . The Salii cannot have their feast without going into debt; you must get the accountants to tell you what the tenths of Hercules and the sacrificial banquets cost; the choicest cook is appointed for the Apaturia, the Dionysia, the Attic mysteries; the smoke from the banquet of Serapis will call out the firemen. Yet about the modest supper-room of the Christians alone a great ado is made. Our feast explains itself by its name. The Greeks call it agapè, i.e., affection. Whatever it costs, our outlay in the name of piety is gain, since with the good things of the feast we benefit the needy; not as it is with you, do parasites aspire to the glory of satisfying their licentious propensities, selling themselves for a belly-feast to all disgraceful treatment - but as it is with God himself, a peculiar respect is shown to the lowly. If the object of our feast be good, in the light of that consider its further regulations. As it is an act of religious service, it permits no vileness or immodesty. The participants, before reclining, taste first of prayer to God. As much is eaten as satisfies the cravings of hunger; as much is drunk as befits the chaste. They say it is enough, as those who remember that even during the night they have to worship God; they talk as those who know that the Lord is one of their auditors. After manual ablution, and the bringing in of lights, each is asked to stand forth and sing, as he can, a hymn to God, either one from the holy Scriptures or one of his own composing - a proof of the measure of our drinking. As the feast commenced with prayer, so with prayer it is closed. We go from it, not like troops of mischief-doers, nor bands of vagabonds, nor to break out into licentious acts, but to have as much care of our modesty and chastity as if we had been at a school of virtue rather than a banquet. Give the congregation of the Christians its due, and hold it unlawful, if it is like assemblies of the illicit sort: by all means let it be condemned, if any complaint can be validly laid against it, such as lies against secret factions. But who has ever suffered harm from our assemblies? We are in our congregations just what we are when separated from each other; we are as a community what we are individuals; we injure nobody, we trouble nobody. When the upright, when the virtuous meet together, when the pious, when the pure assemble in congregation, you ought not to call that a faction, but a curia- [i.e., the court of God.] |
|
15. Tertullian, On Baptism, 18.4, 19.1-19.3, 20.1 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 15. I know not whether any further point is mooted to bring baptism into controversy. Permit me to call to mind what I have omitted above, lest I seem to break off the train of impending thoughts in the middle. There is to us one, and but one, baptism; as well according to the Lord's gospel as according to the apostle's letters, inasmuch as he says, One God, and one baptism, and one church in the heavens. But it must be admitted that the question, What rules are to be observed with regard to heretics? is worthy of being treated. For it is to us that that assertion refers. Heretics, however, have no fellowship in our discipline, whom the mere fact of their excommunication testifies to be outsiders. I am not bound to recognize in them a thing which is enjoined on me, because they and we have not the same God, nor one - that is, the same- Christ. And therefore their baptism is not one with ours either, because it is not the same; a baptism which, since they have it not duly, doubtless they have not at all; nor is that capable of being counted which is not had. Ecclesiastes 1:15 Thus they cannot receive it either, because they have it not. But this point has already received a fuller discussion from us in Greek. We enter, then, the font once: once are sins washed away, because they ought never to be repeated. But the Jewish Israel bathes daily, because he is daily being defiled: and, for fear that defilement should be practised among us also, therefore was the definition touching the one bathing made. Happy water, which once washes away; which does not mock sinners (with vain hopes); which does not, by being infected with the repetition of impurities, again defile them whom it has washed! |
|
16. Tertullian, On The Crown, 3.4 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
|
17. Tertullian, On Idolatry, 16 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 16. Touching the ceremonies, however, of private and social solemnities - as those of the white toga, of espousals, of nuptials, of name-givings - I should think no danger need be guarded against from the breath of the idolatry which is mixed up with them. For the causes are to be considered to which the ceremony is due. Those above-named I take to be clean in themselves, because neither manly garb, nor the marital ring or union, descends from honours done to any idol. In short, I find no dress cursed by God, except a woman's dress on a man: for cursed, says He, is every man who clothes himself in woman's attire. The toga, however, is a dress of manly name as well as of manly use. God no more prohibits nuptials to be celebrated than a name to be given. But there are sacrifices appropriated to these occasions. Let me be invited, and let not the title of the ceremony be assistance at a sacrifice, and the discharge of my good offices is at the service of my friends. Would that it were at their service indeed, and that we could escape seeing what is unlawful for us to do. But since the evil one has so surrounded the world with idolatry, it will be lawful for us to be present at some ceremonies which see us doing service to a man, not to an idol. Clearly, if invited unto priestly function and sacrifice, I will not go, for that is service peculiar to an idol; but neither will I furnish advice, or expense, or any other good office in a matter of that kind. If it is on account of the sacrifice that I be invited, and stand by, I shall be partaker of idolatry; if any other cause conjoins me to the sacrificer, I shall be merely a spectator of the sacrifice. |
|
18. Tertullian, On Repentance, 6.20 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
|
19. Tertullian, On Modesty, 13 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 13. We know plainly at this point, too, the suspicions which they raise. For, in fact, they suspect the Apostle Paul of having, in the second (Epistle) to the Corinthians, granted pardon to the self-same fornicator whom in the first he has publicly sentenced to be surrendered to Satan, for the destruction of the flesh, - impious heir as he was to his father's wedlock; as if he subsequently erased his own words, writing: But if any has wholly saddened, he has not wholly saddened me, but in part, lest I burden you all. Sufficient is such a chiding which is given by many; so that, on the contrary, you should prefer to forgive and console, lest, perhaps, by more abundant sadness, such an one be devoured. For which reason, I pray you, confirm toward him affection. For to this end withal have I written, that I may learn a proof of you, that in all (things) you are obedient to me. But if you shall have forgiven any, so (do) I; for I, too, if I have forgiven ought, have forgiven in the person of Christ, lest we be overreached by Satan, since we are not ignorant of his injections. What (reference) is understood here to the fornicator? What to the contaminator of his father's bed? what to the Christian who had overstepped the shamelessness of heathens?- since, of course, he would have absolved by a special pardon one whom he had condemned by a special anger. He is more obscure in his pity than in his indignation. He is more open in his austerity than in his lenity. And yet, (generally), anger is more readily indirect than indulgence. Things of a sadder are more wont to hesitate than things of a more joyous cast. of course the question in hand concerned some moderate indulgence; which (moderation in the indulgence) was now, if ever, to be divined, when it is usual for all the greatest indulgences not to be granted without public proclamation, so far (are they from being granted) without particularization. Why, do you yourself, when introducing into the church, for the purpose of melting the brotherhood by his prayers, the repentant adulterer, lead into the midst and prostrate him, all in haircloth and ashes, a compound of disgrace and horror, before the widows, before the elders, suing for the tears of all, licking the footprints of all, clasping the knees of all? And do you, good shepherd and blessed father that you are, to bring about the (desired) end of the man, grace your harangue with all the allurements of mercy in your power, and under the parable of the ewe go in quest of your goats? do you, for fear lest your ewe again take a leap out from the flock - as if that were no more lawful for the future which was not even once lawful - fill all the rest likewise full of apprehension at the very moment of granting indulgence? And would the apostle so carelessly have granted indulgence to the atrocious licentiousness of fornication burdened with incest, as not at least to have exacted from the criminal even this legally established garb of repentance which you ought to have learned from him? As to have uttered no commination on the past? No allocution touching the future? Nay, more; he goes further, and beseeches that they would confirm toward him affection, as if he were making satisfaction to him, not as if he were granting an indulgence! And yet I hear (him speak of) affection, not communion; as (he writes) withal to the Thessalonians: But if any obey not our word through the epistle, him mark; and associate not with him, that he may feel awed; not regarding (him) as an enemy, but rebuking as a brother. Accordingly, he could have said that to a fornicator, too, affection only was conceded, not communion as well; to an incestuous man, however, not even affection; whom he would, to be sure, have bidden to be banished from their midst - much more, of course, from their mind. But he was apprehensive lest they should be 'overreached by Satan' with regard to the loss of that person whom himself had cast forth to Satan; or else lest, 'by abundance of mourning, he should be devoured' whom he had sentenced to 'destruction of the flesh.' Here they go so far as to interpret destruction of the flesh of the office of repentance; in that by fasts, and squalor, and every species of neglect and studious ill-treatment devoted to the extermination of the flesh, it seems to make satisfaction to God; so that they argue that that fornicator - that incestuous person rather - having been delivered by the apostle to Satan, not with a view to perdition, but with a view to emendation, on the hypothesis that subsequently he would, on account of the destruction (that is, the general affliction) of the flesh, attain pardon, therefore did actually attain it. Plainly, the selfsame apostle delivered to Satan Hymen us and Alexander, that they might be emended into not blaspheming, as he writes to his Timotheus. But withal himself says that 'a stake was given him, an angel of Satan,' by which he was to be buffeted, lest he should exalt himself. If they touch upon this (instance) withal, in order to lead us to understand that such as were delivered to Satan by him (were so delivered) with a view to emendation, not to perdition; what similarity is there between blasphemy and incest, and a soul entirely free from these - nay, rather elated from no other source than the highest sanctity and all innocence; which (elation of soul) was being restrained in the apostle by buffets, if you will, by means (as they say) of pain in the ear or head? Incest, however, and blasphemy, deserved to have delivered the entire persons of men to Satan himself for a possession, not to an angel of his. And (there is yet another point): for about this it makes a difference, nay, rather withal in regard to this it is of the utmost consequence, that we find those men delivered by the apostle to Satan, but to the apostle himself an angel of Satan given. Lastly, when Paul is praying the Lord for its removal, what does he hear? Hold my grace sufficient; for virtue is perfected in infirmity. This they who are surrendered to Satan cannot hear. Moreover, if the crime of Hymen us and Alexander - blasphemy, to wit - is irremissible in this and in the future age, of course the apostle would not, in opposition to the determinate decision of the Lord, have given to Satan, under a hope of pardon, men already sunken from the faith into blasphemy; whence, too, he pronounced them shipwrecked with regard to faith, having no longer the solace of the ship, the Church. For to those who, after believing, have struck upon (the rock of) blasphemy, pardon is denied; on the other hand, heathens and heretics are daily emerging out of blasphemy. But even if he did say, I delivered them to Satan, that they might receive the discipline of not blaspheming, he said it of the rest, who, by their deliverance to Satan- that is, their projection outside the Church- had to be trained in the knowledge that there must be no blaspheming. So, therefore, the incestuous fornicator, too, he delivered, not with a view to emendation, but with a view to perdition, to Satan, to whom he had already, by sinning above an heathen, gone over; that they might learn there must be no fornicating. Finally, he says, for the destruction of the flesh, not its torture- condemning the actual substance through which he had fallen out (of the faith), which substance had already perished immediately on the loss of baptism- in order that the spirit, he says, may be saved in the day of the Lord. And (here, again, is a difficulty): for let this point be inquired into, whether the man's own spirit will be saved. In that case, a spirit polluted with so great a wickedness will be saved; the object of the perdition of the flesh being, that the spirit may be saved in penalty. In that case, the interpretation which is contrary to ours will recognise a penalty without the flesh, if we lose the resurrection of the flesh. It remains, therefore, that his meaning was, that that spirit which is accounted to exist in the Church must be presented saved, that is, untainted by the contagion of impurities in the day of the Lord, by the ejection of the incestuous fornicator; if, that is, he subjoins: Do you not know, that a little leaven spoils the savour of the whole lump? And yet incestuous fornication was not a little, but a large, leaven. |
|
20. Tertullian, On The Games, 8 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 8. To follow out my plan in regard to places: the circus is chiefly consecrated to the Sun, whose temple stands in the middle of it, and whose image shines forth from its temple summit; for they have not thought it proper to pay sacred honours underneath a roof to an object they have itself in open space. Those who assert that the first spectacle was exhibited by Circe, and in honour of the Sun her father, as they will have it, maintain also the name of circus was derived from her. Plainly, then, the enchantress did this in the name of the parties whose priestess she was - I mean the demons and spirits of evil. What an aggregation of idolatries you see, accordingly, in the decoration of the place! Every ornament of the circus is a temple by itself. The eggs are regarded as sacred to the Castors, by men who are not ashamed to profess faith in their production from the egg of a swan, which was no other than Jupiter himself. The Dolphins vomit forth in honour of Neptune. Images of Sessia, so called as the goddess of sowing; of Messia, so called as the goddess of reaping; of Tutulina, so called as the fruit-protecting deity - load the pillars. In front of these you have three altars to these three gods - Great, Mighty, Victorious. They reckon these of Samo-Thrace. The huge Obelisk, as Hermeteles affirms, is set up in public to the Sun; its inscription, like its origin, belongs to Egyptian superstition. Cheerless were the demon-gathering without their Mater Magna; and so she presides there over the Euripus. Consus, as we have mentioned, lies hidden under ground at the Murcian Goals. These two sprang from an idol. For they will have it that Murcia is the goddess of love; and to her, at that spot, they have consecrated a temple. See, Christian, how many impure names have taken possession of the circus! You have nothing to do with a sacred place which is teted by such multitudes of diabolic spirits. And speaking of places, this is the suitable occasion for some remarks in anticipation of a point that some will raise. What, then, you say; shall I be in danger of pollution if I go to the circus when the games are not being celebrated? There is no law forbidding the mere places to us. For not only the places for show-gatherings, but even the temples, may be entered without any peril of his religion by the servant of God, if he has only some honest reason for it, unconnected with their proper business and official duties. Why, even the streets and the market-place, and the baths, and the taverns, and our very dwelling-places, are not altogether free from idols. Satan and his angels have filled the whole world. It is not by merely being in the world, however, that we lapse from God, but by touching and tainting ourselves with the world's sins. I shall break with my Maker, that is, by going to the Capitol or the temple of Serapis to sacrifice or adore, as I shall also do by going as a spectator to the circus and the theatre. The places in themselves do not contaminate, but what is done in them; from this even the places themselves, we maintain, become defiled. The polluted things pollute us. It is on this account that we set before you to whom places of the kind are dedicated, that we may prove the things which are done in them to belong to the idol-patrons to whom the very places are sacred. |
|
21. Tertullian, On The Veiling of Virgins, 7 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 7. Turn we next to the examination of the reasons themselves which lead the apostle to teach that the female ought to be veiled, (to see) whether the self-same (reasons) apply to virgins likewise; so that hence also the community of the name between virgins and not-virgins may be established, while the self-same causes which necessitate the veil are found to exist in each case. If the man is head of the woman, of course (he is) of the virgin too, from whom comes the woman who has married; unless the virgin is a third generic class, some monstrosity with a head of its own. If it is shameful for a woman to be shaven or shorn, of course it is so for a virgin. (Hence let the world, the rival of God, see to it, if it asserts that close-cut hair is graceful to a virgin in like manner as that flowing hair is to a boy.) To her, then, to whom it is equally unbecoming to be shaven or shorn, it is equally becoming to be covered. If the woman is the glory of the man, how much more the virgin, who is a glory withal to herself! If the woman is of the man, and for the sake of the man, that rib of Adam was first a virgin. If the woman ought to have power upon the head, all the more justly ought the virgin, to whom pertains the essence of the cause (assigned for this assertion). For if (it is) on account of the angels- those, to wit, whom we read of as having fallen from God and heaven on account of concupiscence after females- who can presume that it was bodies already defiled, and relics of human lust, which such angels yearned after, so as not rather to have been inflamed for virgins, whose bloom pleads an excuse for human lust likewise? For thus does Scripture withal suggest: And it came to pass, it says, when men had begun to grow more numerous upon the earth, there were withal daughters born them; but the sons of God, having descried the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to themselves wives of all whom they elected. For here the Greek name of women does seem to have the sense wives, inasmuch as mention is made of marriage. When, then, it says the daughters of men, it manifestly purports virgins, who would be still reckoned as belonging to their parents- for wedded women are called their husbands'- whereas it could have said the wives of men: in like manner not naming the angels adulterers, but husbands, while they take unwedded daughters of men, who it has above said were born, thus also signifying their virginity: first, born; but here, wedded to angels. Anything else I know not that they were except born and subsequently wedded. So perilous a face, then, ought to be shaded, which has cast stumbling-stones even so far as heaven: that, when standing in the presence of God, at whose bar it stands accused of the driving of the angels from their (native) confines, it may blush before the other angels as well; and may repress that former evil liberty of its head -(a liberty) now to be exhibited not even before human eyes. But even if they were females already contaminated whom those angels had desired, so much the more on account of the angels would it have been the duty of virgins to be veiled, as it would have been the more possible for virgins to have been the cause of the angels' sinning. If, moreover, the apostle further adds the prejudgment of nature, that redundancy of locks is an honour to a woman, because hair serves for a covering, of course it is most of all to a virgin that this is a distinction; for their very adornment properly consists in this, that, by being massed together upon the crown, it wholly covers the very citadel of the head with an encirclement of hair. |
|
22. Cyprian, The Dress of Virgins, 2 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
|
23. Cyprian, The Lapsed, 15-17, 23, 10 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
|
24. Cyprian, Testimoniorum Libri Tres Adversus Judaeos (Ad Quirinum), 2.16, 3.98 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
|
25. Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, 4.18.6-4.18.8, 4.23.10, 5.24.3, 6.14.7 (3rd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)
| 4.18.6. He composed also a dialogue against the Jews, which he held in the city of Ephesus with Trypho, a most distinguished man among the Hebrews of that day. In it he shows how the divine grace urged him on to the doctrine of the faith, and with what earnestness he had formerly pursued philosophical studies, and how ardent a search he had made for the truth. 4.18.7. And he records of the Jews in the same work, that they were plotting against the teaching of Christ, asserting the same things against Trypho: Not only did you not repent of the wickedness which you had committed, but you selected at that time chosen men, and you sent them out from Jerusalem through all the land, to announce that the godless heresy of the Christians had made its appearance, and to accuse them of those things which all that are ignorant of us say against us, so that you become the causes not only of your own injustice, but also of all other men's. 4.18.8. He writes also that even down to his time prophetic gifts shone in the Church. And he mentions the Apocalypse of John, saying distinctly that it was the apostle's. He also refers to certain prophetic declarations, and accuses Trypho on the ground that the Jews had cut them out of the Scripture. A great many other works of his are still in the hands of many of the brethren. 4.23.10. For from the beginning it has been your practice to do good to all the brethren in various ways, and to send contributions to many churches in every city. Thus relieving the want of the needy, and making provision for the brethren in the mines by the gifts which you have sent from the beginning, you Romans keep up the hereditary customs of the Romans, which your blessed bishop Soter has not only maintained, but also added to, furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints, and encouraging the brethren from abroad with blessed words, as a loving father his children. 5.24.3. He fell asleep at Ephesus. 6.14.7. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it. But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel. This is the account of Clement. |
|
26. Nag Hammadi, On The Origin of The World, 103.17-103.21, 103.29-103.32, 104.3, 117.28, 127.7-127.17 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
|
27. Nag Hammadi, The Gospel of Philip, 67.27, 67.28, 67.29, 67.30, 70.34-71.15 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
|
28. Nag Hammadi, The Hypostasis of The Archons, 95.6-95.20, 95.22-95.26, 95.31-95.34, 97.5-97.9 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
|
29. Nag Hammadi, The Tripartite Tractate, 128.33, 128.35 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
|
30. Plotinus, Enneads, (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
|
31. Augustine, Confessions, 6.2 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
| 6.2. 2. When, therefore, my mother had at one time - as was her custom in Africa - brought to the oratories built in the memory of the saints certain cakes, and bread, and wine, and was forbidden by the doorkeeper, so soon as she learned that it was the bishop who had forbidden it, she so piously and obediently acceded to it, that I myself marvelled how readily she could bring herself to accuse her own custom, rather than question his prohibition. For wine-bibbing did not take possession of her spirit, nor did the love of wine stimulate her to hatred of the truth, as it does too many, both male and female, who nauseate at a song of sobriety, as men well drunk at a draught of water. But she, when she had brought her basket with the festive meats, of which she would taste herself first and give the rest away, would never allow herself more than one little cup of wine, diluted according to her own temperate palate, which, out of courtesy, she would taste. And if there were many oratories of departed saints that ought to be honoured in the same way, she still carried round with her the selfsame cup, to be used everywhere; and this, which was not only very much watered, but was also very tepid with carrying about, she would distribute by small sips to those around; for she sought their devotion, not pleasure. As soon, therefore, as she found this custom to be forbidden by that famous preacher and most pious prelate, even to those who would use it with moderation, lest thereby an occasion of excess might be given to such as were drunken, and because these, so to say, festivals in honour of the dead were very like the superstition of the Gentiles, she most willingly abstained from it. And in lieu of a basket filled with fruits of the earth, she had learned to bring to the oratories of the martyrs a heart full of more purified petitions, and to give all that she could to the poor; that so the communion of the Lord's body might be rightly celebrated there, where, after the example of His passion, the martyrs had been sacrificed and crowned. But yet it seems to me, O Lord my God, and thus my heart thinks of it in your sight, that my mother perhaps would not so easily have given way to the relinquishment of this custom had it been forbidden by another whom she loved not as Ambrose, whom, out of regard for my salvation, she loved most dearly; and he loved her truly, on account of her most religious conversation, whereby, in good works so fervent in spirit, Romans 12:11 she frequented the church; so that he would often, when he saw me, burst forth into her praises, congratulating me that I had such a mother - little knowing what a son she had in me, who was in doubt as to all these things, and did not imagine the way of life could be found out. |
|
32. Severus of Minorca, Letters, 17
|
