From Chapters 66-67 of Saint Basil’s On the Holy Spirit. In this book, Basil argues against the newly-arisen pneumatomach (“spirit fighters”) movement, which taught that the Holy Spirit is not to be glorified or worshiped. In Chapter 1 he writes:

Lately when praying with the people, and using the full doxology to God the Father in both forms, at one time “[Glory to the Father] with the Son together with the Holy Ghost,” and at another “through the Son in the Holy Ghost,” I was attacked by some of those present on the ground that I was introducing novel and at the same time mutually contradictory terms.

The controversy was in part over the exact words with which scripture refers to the Holy Spirit. In this chapter, Basil pauses to note that not everything we say or do in prayer is verbatim from scripture — yet none of his readers, in any of the churches of the ancient east or west, would suggest changing these ancient practices.

Of the beliefs and practices, whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined, which are preserved in the Church, some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us “in a mystery” by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay — no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we would unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, would make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more. For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is thence who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ?

What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For, as is well known, we are not content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and we also bless the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? In fact, by what written word is the anointing with oil itself taught? And from where comes the custom of baptizing thrice? And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels?

Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation? Well had they learnt the lesson that the awful dignity of the mysteries is best preserved by silence. What the uninitiated are not even allowed to look at was hardly likely to be publicly paraded about in written documents. What was the meaning of the mighty Moses in not making all the parts of the tabernacle open to every one?

The profane he stationed outside the sacred barriers; the first courts he conceded to the purer. The Levites alone he judged worthy of being servants of the Deity; sacrifices and burnt offerings and the rest of the priestly functions he allotted to the priests; one chosen out of all he admitted to the sanctuary, and even this one not always but on only one day in the year. And of this one day a time was fixed for his entry so that he might gaze on the Holy of Holies amazed at the strangeness and novelty of the sight. Moses was wise enough to know that contempt stretches to the trite and to the obvious, while a keen interest is naturally associated with the unusual and the unfamiliar. In the same manner the Apostles and Fathers who laid down laws for the Church from the beginning thus guarded the awesome dignity of the mysteries in secrecy and silence, for what is bruited abroad randomly among the common folk is no mystery at all.

This is the reason for our tradition of unwritten precepts and practices, that the knowledge of our dogmas may not become neglected and held in contempt by the multitude through familiarity.

Dogma [that which is believed] and Kerygma [that which is preached] are two distinct things; the former is observed in silence; the latter is proclaimed to all the world. One form of this silence is the obscurity employed in Scripture, which makes the meaning of “dogmas” difficult to be understood for the very advantage of the reader.

Thus we all look to the East at our prayers, but few of us know that we are seeking our own old country, Paradise, which God planted in Eden in the East. We pray standing, on the first day of the week, but we do not all know the reason. On the day of the resurrection [Greek standing again] we remind ourselves of the grace given to us by standing at prayer, not only because we have risen with Christ, and are bound to “seek those things which are above,” but because the day seems to us to be in some sense an image of the age which we await. Therefore, though it is the beginning of days, it is not called by Moses first, but one. For he says “There was evening, and there was morning, one day,” as though the same day often recurred.

Now this “one” day and the “eighth” day are the same, in itself distinctly indicating that really “one” and “eighth” of which the Psalmist makes mention in certain titles of the Psalms. The eighth day is the state which follows after this present time, the day which knows no waning or evening, and no successor; that age which does not end nor grow old. Of necessity, then, the church teaches her own foster children to offer their prayers on that day standing, so that through continual reminder of the endless life we may not neglect to make provision for our removal thither. Moreover all of Pentecost is a reminder of the resurrection expected in the age to come. For that one and first day, if seven times multiplied by seven, completes the seven weeks of the holy Pentecost; for, beginning at the first, Pentecost ends with the same, making fifty revolutions through the intervening days.

And so it is a likeness of eternity, beginning as it does and ending as in a circling course, at the same point. On this day the rules of the church have educated us to prefer the upright attitude of prayer, for by their plain reminder they, as it were, make our mind to dwell no longer in the present but in the future. Moreover every time we fall upon our knees and rise from off them we shew by the very deed that by our sin we fell down to earth, and by the loving kindness of our Creator were called back to heaven.

Time will fail me if I attempt to recount the unwritten mysteries of the Church. Of the rest I say nothing; but of the very confession of our faith in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, what is the written source? If it be granted that, we are under obligation to believe in the same way we were baptized, then we make our confession in like terms as our baptism, in accordance with the tradition of our baptism and in conformity with the principles of true religion. So let our opponents grant us too the right to be as consistent in our giving glory as in our confession of faith. If they deprecate our doxology on the ground that it lacks written authority, then let them give us the written evidence for the confession of our faith and the other matters which we have enumerated. While the unwritten traditions are so many, and their bearing on “the mystery of godliness” is so important, can they refuse to allow us a single word which has come down to us from the Fathers — which we found, derived from untutored custom, abiding in unperverted churches — a word for which the arguments are strong, and which contributes in no small degree to the completeness of the force of the mystery?

Christians cannot be distinguished from the rest of the human race by country or language or customs. They do not live in cities of their own; they do not use a peculiar form of speech; they do not follow an eccentric manner of life. This doctrine of theirs has not been discovered by the ingenuity or deep thought of inquisitive men, nor do they put forward a merely human teaching, as some people do.

Yet, although they live in Greek and barbarian cities alike, as each man’s lot has been cast, and follow the customs of the country in clothing and food and other matters of daily living, at the same time they give proof of the remarkable and admittedly extraordinary constitution of their own commonwealth. They live in their own countries, but only as aliens. They have a share in everything as citizens, and endure everything as foreigners. Every foreign land is their fatherland, and yet for them every fatherland is a foreign land. They marry, like everyone else, and they beget children, but they do not cast out their offspring. They share their board with each other, but not their marriage bed. It is true that they are “in the flesh,” but they do not live “according to the flesh.”

They busy themselves on earth, but their citizenship is in heaven.

They obey the established laws, but in their own lives they go far beyond what the laws require. They love all men, and by all men are persecuted. They are unknown, and still they are condemned; they are put to death, and yet they are brought to life. They are poor, and yet they make many rich; they are completely destitute, and yet they enjoy complete abundance. They are dishonored, and in their very dishonor are glorified; they are defamed, and are vindicated. They are reviled, and yet they bless; when they are affronted, they still pay due respect. When they do good, they are punished as evildoers; undergoing punishment, they rejoice because they are brought to life. They are treated by the Jews as foreigners and enemies, and are hunted down by the Greeks; and all the time those who hate them find it impossible to justify their enmity.

Chapter 5 of the Epistle to Diognetus
From Early Christian Fathers, translated by Cyril Richardson
via ccel.org

From a letter of St Basil to his friend Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium, about how to receive into communion with the Church converts who have received a form of baptism outside the Chruch.

As to your enquiry about the Cathari, a statement has already been made, and you have properly reminded me that it is right to follow the custom obtaining in each region; because those who at the time gave decision on these points, held different opinions concerning their baptism. But the baptism of the Pepuzenes seems to me to have no authority; and I am astonished how this can have escaped Dionysius, acquainted as he was with the canons.

The old authorities decided to accept that baptism which in no way errs from the faith. Thus they used the names of heresies, of schisms, and of unlawful congregations. By heresies they meant men who were altogether broken off and alienated in matters relating to the actual faith; by schisms men who had separated for some ecclesiastical reasons and questions capable of mutual solution; by unlawful congregations gatherings held by disorderly presbyters or bishops or by uninstructed laymen. As, for instance, if a man be convicted of crime, and prohibited from discharging ministerial functions, and then refuses to submit to the canons, but arrogates to himself episcopal and ministerial rights, and persons leave the catholic Church and join him, this is unlawful assembly. To disagree with members of the Church about repentance, is schism. Instances of heresy are those of the Manichaeans, of the Valentinians, of the Marcionites, and of these Pepuzenes; for with them there comes in at once their disagreement concerning the actual faith in God. So it seemed good to the ancient authorities to reject the baptism of heretics altogether, but to admit that of schismatics, on the ground that they still belonged to the Church.

As to those who assembled in unlawful congregations, their decision was to join them again to the Church, after they had been brought to a better state by proper repentance and rebuke; and so, in many cases, when men in orders had rebelled with the disorderly, to receive them on their repentance, into the same rank. Now the Pepuzenes are plainly heretical, for, by unlawfully and shamefully applying to Montanus and Priscilla the title of the Paraclete, they have blasphemed against the Holy Ghost. They are, therefore, to be condemned for ascribing divinity to men; and for outraging the Holy Ghost by comparing Him to men. They are thus also liable to eternal damnation, inasmuch as blasphemy against the Holy Ghost admits of no forgiveness. What ground is there, then, for the acceptance of the baptism of men who baptize into the Father and the Son and Montanus or Priscilla? For those who have not been baptized into the names delivered to us have not been baptized at all.

The Cathari are schismatics. But it seemed good to the ancient authorities, I mean Cyprian and our own Firmilianus, to reject all these, Cathari, Encratites, and Hydroparastatae, by one common condemnation, because the origin of separation arose through schism, and those who had apostatized from the Church had no longer on them the grace of the Holy Spirit, for it ceased to be imparted when the continuity was broken. The first separatists had received their ordination from the Fathers, and possessed the spiritual gift by the laying on of their hands. But they who were broken off had become laymen, and, because they are no longer able to confer on others that grace of the Holy Spirit from which they themselves are fallen away, they had no authority either to baptize or to ordain. And therefore those who were from time to time baptized by them, were ordered, as though baptized by laymen, to come to the church to be purified by the Church’s true baptism.

Nevertheless, since it has seemed to some of those of Asia that, for the sake of management of the majority, their baptism should be accepted, let it be accepted. We must, however, perceive the iniquitous action of the Encratites; who, in order to shut themselves out from being received back by the Church have endeavoured for the future to anticipate readmission by a peculiar baptism of their own, violating, in this manner even their own special practice. My opinion, therefore, is that nothing being distinctly laid down concerning them, it is our duty to reject their baptism, and that in the case of any one who has received baptism from them, we should, on his coming to the church, baptize him. If, however, there is any likelihood of this being detrimental to general discipline, we must fall back upon custom, and follow the fathers who have ordered what course we are to pursue. For I am under some apprehension lest, in our wish to discourage them from baptizing, we may, through the severity of our decision, be a hindrance to those who are being saved. If they accept our baptism, do not allow this to distress us. We are by no means bound to return them the same favour, but only strictly to obey canons. On every ground let it be enjoined that those who come to us from their baptism be anointed in the presence of the faithful, and only on these terms approach the mysteries. I am aware that I have received into episcopal rank Izois and Saturninus from the Encratite following. I am precluded therefore from separating from the Church those who have been united to their company, inasmuch as, through my acceptance of the bishops, I have promulgated a kind of canon of communion with them.

Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130-202 AD), in “Against Heresies” 1:10:1-2

The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith:

[We believe] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father “to gather all things in one,” and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race; in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord and God and Savior and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, “every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess” to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send “spiritual wickednesses,” and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love — some from the beginning [of their lives], and others from [the day of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.

As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these — for no one is greater than the Master; nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.

This wall painting, depicting the Healing of the Paralytic, is one of the earliest known representations of Jesus, dating from about 235 AD.

The painting was found in 1921 on the left-hand wall of the baptismal chamber of the house-church at Dura Europos on the Euphrates River in modern Syria.

It is now part of the Dura Europos collection at the Yale University Gallery of Fine Arts.

On the right, the paralytic is on his bed. Top center, Christ is saying, “That you may know that the Son of Man has power to forgive sins: rise up, take up your bed and walk.”

On the left, the man takes his bed (a cot-like couch) and walks away. This story is appropriate for a baptismal chamber, in that it represents the forgiveness of sins.

To this right of this scene, Christ is stretching his arm out to Peter, saving him from the waves of the sea.

The figure of Jesus in this fresco, one of the the oldest we know, is a type of the Teacher. He wears a tunic and pallium and sandals on his feet, he has close-cropped hair, and his face is that of a youthful, distinguished intellectual.

This fascinating document carries the Greek title The Teaching [didachē] of the Twelve Apostles.

The Didachē is a short catechism, probably written in Syria during the second half of the 1st century. Eusebius in the fourth century counts it among the spurious books, along with the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd, and the book of Revelation. Rufinus, Athanasius, and other writers give it a place among the deuterocanonical works. Other writers reject it entirely, though the Ethiopian Orthodox Chruch counts it as canonical.

The text is paraphrased and quoted extensively among the early fathers, but the work itself was considered lost until in 1873 Philotheos Bryennios, Metropolitan of Nicomedia, rediscovered it in the Greek Codex Hierosolymitanus, written in 1053. Bryennios published it ten years later. He had earlier published the full text of the Epistles of Clement from the same manuscript in 1875.

Shortly after Bryennios’ initial publication, the scholar Otto von Gebhardt identified a Latin manuscript in the Abbey of Melk in Austria as containing a translation of the first part of the Didache; later scholars now believe that to be an independent witness to the tradition of the “Two Ways”" section. Dr. J. Schlecht found in 1900 another Latin translation of chapters 1 through 5. Coptic and Ethiopian translations have also been discovered since Bryennios’ original publication.

The Didachē is concerned with practical discipline and does not deliberately teach doctrine, but from the writer’s assumptions we learn a great deal about the development of the early Church in his generation.

It is divided into three parts. The first part is a moral teaching called the “Two Ways,” which also comprises the eighteenth to twentieth chapters of the Epistle of Barnabas. Regarding this section, the Jewish Encyclopedia (1906) says:

The most acceptable theory among the many proposed on the character and composition of the Didache is that proposed by Charles Taylor in 1886, and accepted in 1895 by A. Harnack (who in 1884 had most vigorously maintained its Christian origin) — that the first part of the Didache, the teaching concerning the Two Ways (Didache, ch. i.-vi.), was originally a manual of instruction used for the initiation of proselytes in the Synagogue, and was converted later into a Christian manual and ascribed to Jesus and the Apostles.

The third chapter of the Didachē, especially, resembles very closely passages in the Babylonian Talmud.

Beginning in the seventh chapter, the second part of the Didachē addresses baptism, fasting, prayer, and the Eucharist. Its proscription regarding fasting “with the hypocrites” refers obliquely to the Monday and Thursday fasts described in the Mishnah, and substitutes for the Christian a fast on Wednesdays and Fridays (a discipline which survived until the twentieth century in the West and is still current in the Christian East.)

Christians are to pray the Lord’s Prayer three times a day, as the Jews prayed the Shema thrice daily. Interestingly, the Lord’s Prayer here is not quite St Matthew’s version, and includes the added doxology: “For Thine is the power and the glory for ever” while the doxology in most manuscripts is added to Matthew with “…the Kingdom and the power and the glory.” The Eucharistic prayers in chapters nine and ten are reminiscent of the Jewish blessings over bread and wine, and are echoed in later centuries by Clement of Alexandria and Origen.

The third part of the Didachē, beginning in chapter eleven, gives instruction regarding itinerant teachers and prophets, who in the writer’s generation, still exist in parallel to the offices of the local congregation: “Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers.” The presence of these wandering prophets, and the final chapter’s expectation of the Lord’s return in the writer’s generation, are typical of the Church of the late first century.

Eusebius, in Book 5 of his Ecclesiastical History, records a letter sent from the Christians in Gaul to their brothers in Asia. As Eusebius writes, this record is “worthy of perpetual memory.” Amid persecution they discovered depths of faith, received great grace, and fought the good fight to the end. May we never see such tribulation; but if we must, may we contend for the faith as triumphantly as these saints did.

Eusebius writes: Other writers of history record the victories of war and trophies won from enemies, the skill of generals, and the manly bravery of soldiers, defiled with blood and with innumerable slaughters for the sake of children and country and other possessions. But our narrative of the government of God will record the most peaceful wars waged in behalf of the peace of the soul, and will tell of men doing brave deeds for truth rather than country, and for piety rather than dearest friends. It will hand down to imperishable remembrance the discipline and the much-tried fortitude of the athletes of religion, the trophies won from demons, the victories over invisible enemies, and the crowns placed upon all their heads.

The country in which the arena was prepared for them was Gaul, of which Lyons and Vienne are the principal cities. The most celebrated churches in that country sent an account of the witnesses to the churches in Asia and Phrygia, relating in the following manner what was done among them. I will give their own words:

The servants of Christ residing at Vienne and Lyons, in Gaul, to the brethren throughout Asia and Phrygia, who hold the same faith and hope of redemption: Peace and grace and glory from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

The greatness of the tribulation in this region, and the fury of the heathen against the saints, and the sufferings of the blessed witnesses, we cannot recount accurately; indeed they could not possibly be recorded. For with all his might the adversary fell on us, giving us a foretaste of his unbridled activity at his future coming. He endeavored in every manner to practice and exercise his servants against the servants of God — not only shutting us out from houses and baths and markets, but any forbidding us to be seen in any place at all.

But the grace of God led the conflict against him, and delivered the weak, and set them as firm pillars, able through patience to endure all the wrath of the evil one. And they joined battle with him, undergoing all kinds of shame and injury. Regarding their great sufferings as little, they hastened to Christ, manifesting truly that “the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.” First of all they endured nobly the injuries heaped upon them by the populace — clamors and blows, draggings and robberies, stonings and imprisonments, and every other thing an infuriated mob delights in inflicting on enemies and adversaries. Then they were taken to the forum by the chiliarch and the authorities of the city and were examined in the presence of the whole multitude; and having confessed [Christ], they were imprisoned until the arrival of the governor.

Afterwards they were brought before him, and he treated us with the utmost cruelty. Then one of the brethren, Vettius Epagathus, a man filled with love for God and his neighbor, interfered. Though he was a yong man, his life was so consistent that he had attained a reputation equal to that of the elder Zacharias: for he “walked in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.” He was untiring in every good work for his neighbor, zealous for God and fervent in spirit. As this was his character, he could not endure the unreasonable judgment against us, but was filled with indignation, and asked to be allowed to testify in behalf of his brethren, that there is among us nothing ungodly or impious.

But those around the judgment seat cried out against him, for he was a man of distinction, and the governor refused to grant his just request. The governor merely asked if he also were a Christian. Confessing this with a loud voice, he was taken into the order of those bearing witness [for Christ]. Vettius Epagathus was called the advocate of the Christians, but he had the Advocate in himself, the Spirit more abundantly than Zacharias. He showed this by the fullness of his love, being well pleased even to lay down his life in defense of the brethren. For he was and is a true disciple of Christ, “following the Lamb wherever He goes.”

Then the others were divided, and the first witnesses were manifestly ready [to be executed], and finished their confession with all eagerness. But some appeared unprepared and untrained, weak as yet, and unable to endure so great a conflict. About ten of these proved to be abortions, causing us great grief and sorrow beyond measure, and impairing the zeal of the others. These others had not yet been seized, but continued constantly with the witnesses and did not forsake them.

Then all of us were greatly afraid because of uncertainty as to their confession — not because we dreaded the sufferings to be endured, but because we looked to the end, and were afraid that some of them might fall away. But those who were worthy were seized day by day, filling up their number so that all the zealous ones, and especially those through whom our affairs had been established, were collected together out of the two churches.

And some of our unbelieving household members also were seized, as the governor had commanded that all of us should be examined publicly. These, being ensnared by Satan, and fearing for themselves the tortures which they beheld the saints endure, and being also urged on by the soldiers, accused us falsely of Thyestean [cannibalistic] banquets and Oedipean [incestuous] intercourse; of deeds which are not only unlawful for us to speak of or to think, but which we cannot believe were ever done by men.

When these accusations were reported, all the people raged like wild beasts against us, so that even if any had formerly been moderate on account of friendship, they were now exceedingly furious and gnashed their teeth against us. And that which was spoken by our Lord was fulfilled: ” The time will come when whosoever killeth you will think that he is serving God.” Then finally the holy witnesses endured sufferings beyond description, Satan striving earnestly to make some of them speak slander as well.

But the fury of the populace, and governor, and soldiers was aroused exceedingly against Sanctus, the deacon from Vienne, and Maturus, a late convert but a noble combatant, and against Attalus, a native of Pergamos where he had always been a pillar and foundation, and Blandina, through whom Christ showed that things which appear poor, obscure and despicable to men are of great glory with God, through love toward Him manifested in power, and not boasting in appearance. For while we all trembled, and Blandina’s earthly mistress, who was herself also one of the witnesses , feared that on account of the weakness of her body, she would be unable to make bold confession, Blandina was filled with such power that she was delivered and raised above those who were torturing her by turns from morning till evening in every manner, so that they acknowledged that they were conquered and could do nothing more to her. And they were astonished at her endurance, as her entire body was mangled and broken; and they testified that one of these forms of torture was sufficient to snuff out a life, not to speak of so many and such great sufferings. But the blessed woman, like a noble athlete, renewed her strength in her confession; and her comfort and consolation and relief from the pain of her sufferings was in exclaiming, “I am a Christian, and nothing vile is done by us.”

But Sanctus also endured marvelously and superhumanly all the outrages which he suffered. While the wicked men hoped, by the continuance and severity of his tortures to wring something from him which he ought not to say, he girded himself against them with such firmness that he would not even tell his name, or the nation or city to which he belonged, or whether he was bond or free, but answered in the Roman tongue to all their questions, “I am a Christian.” He confessed this instead of name and city and race and everything besides, and the people heard no other word from him. For this reason the governor and his tormentors desired to conquer him, but having nothing more that they could do to him, they finally fastened red-hot brazen plates to the most tender parts of his body. And these indeed were burned, but he continued unbending and unyielding, firm in his confession, and refreshed and strengthened by the heavenly fountain of the water of life, flowing from Christ Himself.

Sanctus’ body was a witness of his sufferings, being one complete wound and bruise, pulled out of shape, and altogether unlike a human form. Christ manifested His glory, suffering in him, delivering him from his adversary, and making him an example for the others. He showed in Sanctus that nothing is fearful where the love of the Father is, and nothing painful where there is the glory of Christ. For when the wicked men tortured him a second time after some days, supposing that with his body swollen and inflamed to such a degree that he could not bear the touch of a hand, if they should again apply the same instruments, they would overcome him — or at least by his death under his sufferings others would be made afraid — not only did not this occur, but, contrary to all anyone could have expected, his body arose and stood erect in the midst of the subsequent torments, and resumed its original appearance and the use of its limbs, so that through the grace of Christ these second sufferings became to him, not torture, but healing.

The devil thought that he had already consumed Biblias, who was one of those who had denied Christ. Desiring to increase her condemnation through the utterance of blasphemy, brought her again to torture, to compel her to report impious things concerning us. But she recovered herself under the suffering, and as if awaking from a deep sleep, and reminded by the present anguish of the eternal punishment in hell, she contradicted the blasphemers. “How,” she said, “could we eat children, when we do not think it lawful to taste the blood even of irrational animals?” [cf. Acts 15:20] And from that point on she confessed herself a Christian, and was given a place in the order of the witnesses .

But as the tyrannical tortures were made of no effect by Christ through the patience of the blessed ones, the devil invented other contrivances: confinement in the dark and most loathsome parts of the prison, stretching of the feet to the fifth hole in the stocks, and the other outrages which his servants are accustomed to inflict upon the prisoners when furious and filled with the devil. A great many were suffocated in prison, being chosen by the Lord for this manner of death that He might show forth His glory in them.

Some had been tortured so cruelly that it seemed impossible that they could live, even with the most careful nursing. Yet, deprived of human attention, they remained in the prison and were strengthened by the Lord and invigorated both in body and soul. These exhorted and encouraged the rest.

But those who were young and arrested recently, so that their bodies had not become accustomed to torture, were unable to endure the severity of their confinement, and died in prison.

The blessed Pothinus, who had been entrusted with the bishopric of Lyons, was dragged to the judgment seat. He was more than ninety years of age and very infirm, scarcely indeed able to breathe because of physical weakness. But he was strengthened by spiritual zeal through his earnest desire for martyrdom. Though his body was worn out by old age and disease, his life was preserved so that Christ might triumph in it. When he was brought by the soldiers to the tribunal, accompanied by the civil magistrates and a multitude who shouted against him in every manner as if he were Christ himself, he bore noble witness. When the governor asked who the God of the Christians is, Pothinus replied, “If you are worthy, you will know.” Then he was dragged away harshly, and received blows of every kind. Those near him struck him with their hands and feet, regardless of his age, and those at a distance hurled at him whatever they could seize. All of them thought that they would be guilty of great wickedness and impiety if any possible abuse were omitted, for in this way they thought to avenge the offense against their own deities. Scarcely able to breathe, Pothinus was cast into prison and died after two days.

Then a great dispensation of God occurred, and the compassion of Jesus appeared beyond measure in a manner rarely seen among the brotherhood, but not beyond the power of Christ. For those who had recanted at their first arrest were imprisoned with the others, and endured terrible sufferings, so that their denial was of no profit to them even for the present. But those who confessed that they were imprisoned as Christians, found that no other accusation being brought against them. But the first were treated afterwards as murderers and defiled, and were punished twice as severely as the others. For the joy of martyrdom, and the hope of the promises, and love for Christ, and the Spirit of the Father supported the latter; but their consciences so greatly distressed the former that they were easily distinguishable from all the rest by their very countenances when they were led forth. For the first went out rejoicing, glory and grace being blended in their faces, so that even their bonds seemed like beautiful ornaments, as those of a bride adorned with variegated golden fringes. And they were perfumed with the sweet savor of Christ, so that some supposed they had been anointed with earthly ointment.

But the others were downcast and humble and dejected and filled with every kind of disgrace, and they were reproached by the heathen as ignoble and weak, bearing the accusation of murderers, and having lost the one honorable and glorious and life-giving Name. The rest, beholding this, were strengthened, and when apprehended, they confessed without hesitation, paying no attention to the persuasions of the devil.

After these things, finally, their martyrdom was finally distributed into various kinds. For plaiting a crown of various colors and of all kinds of flowers, they presented it to the Father. It was proper therefore that the noble athletes, having endured a manifold strife, and conquered grandly, should receive the great and incorruptible crown.

Therefore Maturus, Sanctus, Blandina and Attalus were led to the amphitheater to be exposed to the wild beasts, and to give to the heathen public a spectacle of cruelty, a day for fighting with wild beasts being specially appointed on account of our people. Both Maturus and Sanctus passed again through every torment in the amphitheater, as if they had suffered nothing before, or rather, as if, having already conquered their antagonist in many contests, they were now striving for the crown itself. They endured again the customary running of the gauntlet and the violence of the wild beasts, and everything which the furious people called for or desired, and at last, the iron chair in which their bodies being roasted, tormented them with the fumes. And the persecutors did not stop, but were yet more enraged against them, determined to overcome their patience. But even so they did not hear a word from Sanctus except the confession which he had uttered from the beginning. So these, after their life had continued for a long time through the great conflict, were at last sacrificed, having been made a spectacle to the world throughout that day, in place of the usual variety of combats.

But Blandina was suspended on a stake, and exposed to be devoured by the wild beasts who should attack her. And because she appeared as if hanging on a cross, and because of her earnest prayers, she inspired the combatants with great zeal. For they looked on her in her conflict, and beheld with their outward eyes, in the form of their sister, Him who was crucified for them, that He might persuade those who believe on Him, that every one who suffers for the glory of Christ has fellowship always with the living God. As none of the wild beasts at that time touched her, she was taken down from the stake, and cast again into prison. She was preserved thus for another contest, so that, being victorious in more conflicts, she might make the punishment of the crooked serpent irrevocable; and, though small and weak and despised, yet being clothed with Christ the mighty and conquering Athlete, she might arouse the zeal of the brethren, and, having overcome the adversary many times, might receive through her conflict the incorruptible crown .

But Attalus was called for loudly by the people, because he was a person of distinction. He entered the contest readily on account of a good conscience and his genuine practice in Christian discipline, and as he had always been a witness for the truth among us. He was led around the amphitheater, with a tablet carried before him on which was written in the Roman language “This is Attalus the Christian.” The people were filled with indignation against him. But when the governor learned that he was a Roman, he commanded him to be taken back with the rest of those who were in prison concerning whom he had written to Caesar, and whose answer he was awaiting.

But the intervening time was not wasted nor fruitless to the witnesses , for by their patience the measureless compassion of Christ was manifested. For through their continued life the dead were made alive, and the witnesses showed favor to those who had failed to bear witness. And the virgin mother had much joy in receiving alive those whom she had brought forth as dead. For through their influence many who had denied were restored, and re-begotten, and rekindled with life, and learned to confess. And being made alive and strengthened, they went to the judgment seat to be interrogated again by the governor. God, who does not desire the death of the sinner but mercifully invites to repentance, treated them with kindness. For Caesar commanded that they should be put to death, but that any who might deny should be set free. Therefore, at the beginning of the public festival which took place there, and which was attended by crowds of men from all nations, the governor brought the blessed ones to the judgment seat, to make of them a show and spectacle for the multitude. Wherefore also he examined them again, and beheaded those who appeared to possess Roman citizenship, but he sent the others to the wild beasts.

And Christ was glorified greatly in those who had formerly denied him. For, contrary to the expectation of the heathen, they confessed Christ. They were examined by themselves, as if they were about to be set free; but when they confessed, they were added to the order of the witnesses. But some continued outside, who had never possessed a trace of faith, nor any apprehension of the wedding garment, nor an understanding of the fear of God; but, as sons of perdition, they blasphemed the Way through their apostasy. But all the others were added to the Church.

Alexander was a Phrygian by birth and a physician by profession, who had resided in Gaul for many years, and was well known to all on account of his love to God and boldness of speech.

While these others were being examined, Alexander stood before the judgment seat and by signs encouraged them to confess, appearing to those standing by as if in travail. But the people being enraged because those who formerly denied now confessed, cried out against Alexander as if he were the cause of this. Then the governor summoned him and inquired who he was. And when Alexander answered that he was a Christian, the governor being very angry condemned him to the wild beasts. And on the next day he entered along with Attalus. For to please the people, the governor had ordered Attalus again to the wild beasts.

And they were tortured in the amphitheater with all the instruments contrived for that purpose, and having endured a very great conflict, they were at last sacrificed. Alexander neither groaned nor murmured in any manner, but communed in his heart with God. But when Attalus was placed in the iron seat, and the fumes arose from his burning body, he said to the people in the Roman language: “Look! What you are doing is devouring men; but we do not devour men, nor do any other wicked thing.” And being asked, what name God has, he replied, “God does not have a name as man has.”

After all these, on the last day of the contests, Blandina was again brought in, with Ponticus, a boy about fifteen years old. They had been brought every day to witness the sufferings of the others, and had been pressured to swear by the idols. But because they remained steadfast and despised them, the multitude became furious, so that they had no compassion for the youth of the boy nor respect for the sex of the woman. Therefore they exposed them to all the terrible sufferings and took them through the entire round of torture, repeatedly urging them to swear, but being unable to effect this; for Ponticus, encouraged by his sister so that even the heathen could see that she was confirming and strengthening him, having nobly endured every torture, gave up his spirit.

But the blessed Blandina, last of all, having, as a noble mother, encouraged her children and sent them before her victorious to the King, endured herself all their conflicts and hastened after them, glad and rejoicing in her departure as if called to a marriage supper, rather than cast to wild beasts. And, after the scourging, after the wild beasts, after the roasting seat, she was finally enclosed in a net and thrown before a bull. And having been tossed about by the animal, but feeling none of the things which were happening to her, on account of her hope and firm hold upon what had been entrusted to her, and her communion with Christ, she also was sacrificed. And the heathen themselves confessed that never among them had a woman endured so many and such terrible tortures.

But not even thus was their madness and cruelty toward the saints satisfied. For incited by the Wild Beast, wild and barbarous tribes were not easily appeased, and their violence found another peculiar opportunity in the dead bodies. For, through their lack of human reason, the fact that they had been conquered did not put them to shame, but rather further kindled their wrath like that of a wild beast, and aroused the hatred of both the governor and the people to treat us unjustly. This was in fulfillment of the Scripture: “He that is lawless, let him be lawless still, and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still.”

For they cast to the dogs those who had died of suffocation in the prison, carefully guarding them by night and day, lest any of them should be buried by us. And they exposed the remains left by the wild beasts and by fire, mangled and charred, and placed the heads of the others by their bodies, and guarded them in like manner from burial by a watch of soldiers for many days. And some raged and gnashed their teeth against them, desiring to execute more severe vengeance upon them; but others laughed and mocked at them, magnifying their own idols, and imputed to them the punishment of the Christians.

Even the more reasonable, and those who had seemed to sympathize somewhat, reproached them often, saying, “Where is their God? They chose their religion rather than life; what has it profited them?” So various was their conduct toward us; but we were in deep affliction because we could not bury the bodies. For night was no use to us for this purpose, nor did money persuade, nor entreaty move them to compassion; but they kept watch in every way as if the prevention of the burial would be of some great advantage to them.

The bodies of the witnesses, having thus in every manner been exhibited and exposed for six days, were afterward burned and reduced to ashes, and swept into the Rhone by the wicked men so that no trace of them might appear on the earth. And this they did, as if able to conquer God and prevent their new birth; “so that,” as they said, “they may have no hope of a resurrection. Through trust in a resurrection they bring to us this foreign and new religion and despise terrible things, and are ready even to go to death with joy; now let us see if they will rise again, and if their God is able to help them, and to deliver them out of our hands.”

Those who bore witness were so zealous in their imitation of Christ, “who, being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God,” that, though they had attained such honor, and had borne witness, not once or twice, but many times, having been brought back to prison from the wild beasts, covered with burns and scars and wounds, yet they did not proclaim themselves witnesses, nor did they suffer us to address them by this name. If any one of us, in letter or conversation, spoke of them as witnesses, they rebuked him sharply. For they conceded cheerfully the appellation of Witness to Christ “the faithful and true Witness,” and “firstborn of the dead,” and Prince of the life of God; and they reminded us of the witnesses who had already departed, and said, “They are already witnesses whom Christ has deemed worthy to be taken up in their confession, having sealed their testimony by their departure; but we are lowly and humble confessors.”

And they besought the brethren with tears that earnest prayers should be offered that they might be made perfect. They showed in their deeds the power of testimony, manifesting great boldness toward all the brethren, and they made plain their nobility through patience and fearlessness and courage, but they refused the title of Witnesses as distinguishing them from their brethren, being filled with the fear of God.

They humbled themselves under the mighty hand by which they are now greatly exalted. They defended all, but accused none. They absolved all, but bound none. And they prayed for those who had inflicted cruelties upon them, even as Stephen, the perfect witness: “Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.” But if he prayed for those who stoned him, how much more for the brethren!

For through the genuineness of their love, their greatest contest with the Beast was this: That, being choked, he might cast out alive those whom he supposed he had swallowed. For they did not boast over the fallen, but helped them in their need with those things in which they themselves abounded, having the compassion of a mother, and shedding many tears on their account before the Father. They asked for life, and He gave it to them, and they shared it with their neighbors. Victorious over everything, they departed to God. Having always loved peace, and having commended peace to us, they went in peace to God, leaving no sorrow to their mother, nor division or strife to the brethren, but joy and peace and concord and love.

This record of the affection of those blessed ones toward the brethren that had fallen may be profitably added on account of the inhuman and unmerciful disposition of those who, after these events, acted unsparingly toward the members of Christ.

When the Lord Jesus Christ, having gathered his disciples round him to supper on the night before he suffered death, solemnly broke bread before them and blessed a cup of wine and gave them to his disciples, he enjoined them to continue this thenceforward as a continual memorial of his death and passion undergone for the redemption of the world. This command was obeyed from the time that the Holy Spirit descended upon the Church shortly after our Lord’s ascension into heaven. We are told, of those who were converted by the preaching of St. Peter on the day of Pentecost, that ‘they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in the breaking of bread, and in the prayers’. [Acts ii. 42.]

The first liturgy of the type that later became universal does not appear, in the records that have come down to us, until two centuries after this. We have a certain number of notices in the literature of those centuries, from which it is possible to learn something of the nature of the prayers and ceremonies that accompanied the ‘breaking of the bread’; and these we must examine. The evidence is, however, at almost every point confused by the absence at that period of any clear definitions of religious ideas, and of the technical language in which they would at a later date be expressed. It is with the utmost caution that we should form conclusions based on words and phrases which have a very definite meaning to us, but which were probably used more loosely in a primitive age. The sentence quoted in the last paragraph is an example. We shall see later on that a great deal of uncertainty in the interpretation of evidence arises from doubt as to whether words like ‘prex‘, ‘orationes‘, &c., have in any particular case a specialized meaning such as they often acquired, or are used quite generally. In the Acts of the Apostles ‘ the prayers’ may mean, as it would later, the prayers that were used on the occasion of the breaking of the bread; on the other hand, with more probability, the writer may be referring to some other occasion on which the congregation met for prayer. This ambiguity will pursue us for some centuries.

The evidence about the Eucharist is also confused by the fact that at first it was sometimes, if not always, celebrated in connexion with, and following, a social meal known as the Agape or Love-feast, so that any description of the prayers used at the breaking of the bread may be taken to refer either to the Agape or material feast, or to the Eucharist or spiritual feast. This would not have much significance if it were not for the fact that before long – the date is difficult to determine – the two functions were separated, and we may suppose that any prayers belonging to the Agape, such, for instance, as the thanksgiving for the food consumed, would normally disappear, but might in some cases continue, probably with modifications adapting them to the liturgy. And indeed there are scholars, as we shall see, who hold that two of the prayers of the Didache are such, and that they do make sporadic appearances in the ancient liturgies.

The Agape

Two passages, one at the beginning of this primitive period and one near the end, when the Agape must have been near its extinction, will suffice to show its nature.

St. Paul, writing to the Church of Corinth [l Cor.xi.17 ff.], rebukes the brethren there for disorders which have happened at their religious gatherings. There are dissensions among them on these occasions. First he speaks at some length on improper customs among the women attending worship. Then he censures their differences, without indicating their cause, though they seem to be connected with the supper itself.

When ye come together in the congregation (ἐκκλησία – ekklesia)
I hear that dissensions (σχίσματα – schismata) prevail among you,
and I partly believe it.
Indeed there must be parties (αἱρέσεις – haireseias) among you,
that the trustworthy may be manifest.
When therefore ye assemble yourselves together,
it is not the Lord’s Supper that ye eat,
(οὐκ ἔστι κυριακὸν δεῖπνον φαγεῖν – ouk esti kyriakon deipnon phagein)
for in your eating each one taketh before other his own supper,
and one is hungry and another drunken.
Have ye no houses in which to eat and drink?
Or do ye despise the congregation of God,
and humiliate the poor?
What am I to say to you?
Am I to praise you?
I cannot praise you in this;
for I myself received from the Lord that which I delivered to you, &c.

Here follows the account of the Institution of the Eucharist. Then there are warnings against unworthy partaking of the bread and the cup, ‘not discerning the body’, and a final exhortation:

Wherefore my brethren, when ye come together to eat, wait one for another.
If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home;
so that your coming together may not bring judgment upon you.

In this passage the meeting of the faithful was for the purpose of celebrating the Eucharist. The language leaves no doubt about that. On the other hand, it is equally certain that it was also a social feast, held in close connexion with the Eucharist. The mention of the dissensions at this point must mean that they were caused by the inconsiderate and self-indulgent behaviour described. The most natural explanation is that resentment was caused by the fact that some had too much to eat and drink, while others went hungry and thirsty. There is an explicit reference to the poor (τοὺς μὴ ἔχοντας – tous me echontas). St. Paul does not discourage the holding of these meals, but suggests that those who have their own means should satisfy their hunger at home, in order, no doubt, that they should still participate, but as an expression of social fellowship, rather than for their bodily requirements. He does not indicate whether the feast or the sacrament came first, but the nature of the improper behaviour suggests that the Eucharist followed.

From this passage of St. Paul it will be as well to pass to the best account we have of the Agape, written by Tertullian in Africa at the end of the second century. It is in his Apology, where he is defending the Church to the heathen. After describing the charity and love that Christians show to one another, he proceeds:

Why wonder then if such love takes a social form (convivatur)?
For even our little suppers (cenulae) you revile as extravagant,
as well as scandalous from vice.

He then reminds them of the orgies which accompany heathen festivities, and continues:

It is only with the dining room of the Christians that men find fault.
Our feast shows its nature by its name;
it is called by the Greek word for ‘love’ (‘dilectio’, not ‘amor’).
Whatever it may cost, what is spent in the name of piety is well spent;
if by this refreshment we help a number of poor people, it is not, as with your parasites, for the satisfaction of enslaving their liberty through corrupting a belly by stuffing it to the accompaniment of insults, but by what is better in the eyes of God, consideration of the lowly…
Our people do not sit down to meat until prayer to God has been tasted.
That is eaten which hungry men need;
that drunk which is sufficient for the sober.
They are so filled, as men who remember that God is to be praised by them during the night;
they speak, as those who know that God is listening.
After water for the hands and lights have been brought,
each is called upon to sing in the company,
as well as he can, to God, either out of the Holy Scriptures, or that which is of his own composition.
This shows to what extent he is drunk!
In the same way the company dismisses with prayer
[Apol.i.39.].

There is no reference to the Eucharist in Tertullian’s account of the Agape; they had perhaps been separated by this time, though the reserve Christians were bound to maintain concerning the mysteries would naturally account for his silence. But his description enables us to understand the conditions under which the Eucharist was celebrated at an earlier time.

There are reasons for supposing that there was not at first any other public Office than the Eucharist [Swete, J.T.S.iii (1902), 162. Others, however, hold that there was a meeting, corresponding to the Synagogue service, which later became the Mass of the Catechumens.]. The Didache prescribes the use of the Lord’s Prayer three times a day in private devotions [c.8.]. The ‘ Stations’ mentioned by Tertullian [De oratione, 19.] were not meetings, but half-day fasts.

The Eucharist in the first century

The New Testament gives us incidental information about the worship of the Church, but scarcely ever is it definitely related to any particular type of gathering. It is therefore only by analogy with the liturgy as later developed that we can conjecture whether any particular acts of worship mentioned were made in connexion with the Eucharist or on some other occasion. Such conjectural associations will be noted in the Commentary. It will be sufficient here to mention that the Scriptures were read, and also, on certain occasions, the letters of the Apostles; psalms and hymns were sung, sermons delivered, prayers offered for all sorts of men, sins publicly confessed, and open professions of faith made. There were also prophesyings, sometimes quite unintelligible, and acts of healing, and of course baptisms and confirmations. We read as well of some ceremonies. They prayed standing, with hands uplifted, and heads bared; except the women, who were veiled. The kiss of peace was exchanged.

There will be no need to notice incidental allusions to worship in the apostolic age, except such as throw light on the liturgy. Quite early, however, either towards the end of the first century, or perhaps as late as the end of the second century, as some scholars think, [It has generally been placed between 80 and 90, or not much later; Woolley, in its present form, 110-30; Harnack 131-60; J. A. Robinson and R. H. Connolly make it dependent on the Epistle of Barnabas and place it well on in the second century.] prayers of a eucharistic flavour are prescribed in the Didache, a little book in whose second half is a manual of Church life, the precursor of the Church Orders, which will have to be considered later on.

In chapter 7 of this work directions are given for baptism; then there is a short passage about prayer and fasting, after which comes the following:

Concerning the thanksgiving (εὐχαριστία – eucharistia)
thus shall ye give thanks:

First, concerning the cup:We give thee thanks, our Father,
for the holy Vine of David thy servant (παιδός),
which thou didst make known to us through Jesus thy servant.
Thine is the glory for ever.

And concerning that which is broken:

We give thee thanks, our Father,
for the life and knowledge,
which thou didst make known to us through Jesus thy servant.
Thine is the glory for ever.
For as this broken bread (τὸ κλάσμα – to klasma),
scattered over the mountains and gathered together, is one,
so may thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into thy Kingdom;
for thine is the glory and the power,
through Jesus Christ for ever.

Let no one eat or drink of your thanksgiving (or Eucharist?)
but those who have been baptized into the name of the Lord.
For the Lord also has said about this:
‘Give not that which is holy to the dogs’.

And after ye are satisfied give thanks thus:We give thee thanks, Holy Father, for thy holy Name,
which thou hast made to dwell in our hearts,
and for the knowledge and faith and immortality,
which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus thy servant:
thine is the glory for ever.

Thou, Almighty Master, ‘didst create all things’ ‘for thy Name’s sake’,
and didst give food and drink unto men for enjoyment,
that they might give thanks to thee;
but didst bestow upon us spiritual food and drink and eternal life through thy servant.

Before all things we give thee thanks that thou art mighty;
thine is the glory forever.
Remember, Lord, thy Church,
to deliver it from all evil,
and to perfect it in thy love,
and gather it together ‘from the four winds’?
even thy Church which has been sanctified?
into thy Kingdom, which thou hast prepared for it;
for thine is the power and the glory for ever.May grace come and may this world pass away.
‘Hosanna to the God of David.’
If any man is holy let him come;
if any man is not, let him repent.
‘Maran-Atha.’
Amen.

But permit the prophets to offer thanksgiving as much as they desire.

Chapters 11 to 13 are about apostles and prophets. Chapter 14 reads thus:

And on the Lord’s own day gather yourselves together and break bread and give thanks, first confessing your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. And if any man have a dispute with his fellow, let him not join your assembly until they have been reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be defiled; for this sacrifice it is that was spoken of by the Lord: ‘In every place and in every time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great king, saith the Lord, and my Name is wonderful among the nations.’

At first sight these passages all seem to refer to the Eucharist, and so most scholars have taken them. Woolley says:’ That the forms given in chapters 9 and 10 are a form or part of a form of the Eucharistic liturgy can hardly be seriously doubted. The expression πνευματικὴ τροφή in chapter 10 cannot be used of anything but the Eucharist, and the compiler of Apostolic Constitutions certainly regarded these forms as liturgical [Liturgy of the Primitive Church, 49.]. Vernon Bartlet was so sure of it that he considered that the order of the cup and bread, agreeing with St. Luke against the other Gospels, was evidence that when this book was written St. Matthew’s Gospel could not have yet become well known in Syria. [Hastings, D.B. ext. vol. 448.]

Many scholars, however, have found difficulty about these prayers. Chapter 14 certainly speaks of the Eucharist, but 9 and 10 are at least doubtful. Duchesne, without questioning their eucharistic character, says that they have ‘altogether the aspect of an anomaly’, and ‘are outside the main stream’ [Christian Worship, 53.]. Fortescue thinks that they give ‘an incomplete description of an abnormal type of Eucharistic service’ [The Mass, 9.]. A German scholar, Greiff, considers that they are true eucharistic prayers, used only at the Paschal Eucharist, when the newly baptized communicated for the first time [Johanneische Studien, i (See J.T.S. Apr. 1931, p. 290).]. Dom Casel thinks they belong to the Eucharist, but that they are prayers to be said by the people [Jahrb. f. Lit. vi. 217 sqq.]. Drews and von der Goize took the earlier to be an old survival of a Eucharist-Agape, and the last a later eucharistic form. Lietzmann holds that they are an introductory celebration to an Agape. [Messe und Herrenmahl, 233.]

Some, however, look upon these passages as belonging to the Agape. Leclercq [D.A.C.L. xi. 539-52. But cf. art. 'Agape'.], following Cagin [L'Euchologie latine, 2 ; 'L'Eucharistia', 259 f.; also Schuster, Sacr. i. 64.] and other writers, marshals a great array of evidence in favour of their being the ‘grace before and after meals’ of the Agape. The question depends very much on the date and circumstances of the writer of the book. Opinion seems to be moving in the direction of a late date, but in that case it cannot be considered a normal Christian document. It is full of anachronisms for the end of the second century, though it may have been that the community which produced it was itself an anachronism [F. E. Vokes in The Riddle of the Didache, following Connolly, considers it a Montanist work. This might explain its oddity.]. In this case all these prayers may be truly eucharistic, but eccentric. If, on the other hand, it comes from the end of the first century, the first two prayers seem to belong to the Agape.

This was still the age of the composition of the New Testament, which was hardly completed. In the books of the New Testament the word εὐχαριστία always means ‘thanksgiving’ in its general sense. In the Didache the thanksgiving is made, not for the life and death of our Lord, but for certain benefits made known to us through him. The ‘Vine of David’ seems to mean the Church throughout the ages. The ‘ spiritual food’ does not seem to be the body and blood of our Lord, but, as the parallel of the preceding sentence shows, ‘knowledge and faith and immortality’; the thanksgiving is quite general for bodily sustenance and spiritual food. When Apostolic Constitutions, which incorporates the whole of the Didache, applies this language to the Eucharist it has to supplement it with suitable terms. A hearty meal is also implied by the word ἐμπλησθῆναι – emplesthenai’after ye are satisfied (filled)’, for this is a plain direction, not a phrase of devotional rapture. More?over, these prayers are found in much the same form (given below) in a tract De Virginitate of the fourth century, often attributed to St. Athanasius, where they are prayers of ‘Grace’ at ordinary meals.

They are distinctly Jewish in type. The following blessings of the Jewish prayers before the Sabbath meal may be noted:

Blessed art thou, O Lord our God,
King of the universe,
who createst the fruit of the vine.

Blessed art thou, O Lord our God,
King eternal,
who bringest forth bread from the earth.

The prayers of the Didache are therefore, if its date is early, probably not eucharistic; from Chapter 14, moreover, we should expect some reference to the sacrifice.

These thanksgivings, however, have their own interest, and some of the language will be found in the later forms. The prayers in De Virginitate mentioned above are as follows:

We thank thee, our Father, for thy holy resurrection.
For through Jesus thy servant thou hast made it known to us.
And as this bread, having been scattered, is that which is upon this table,
and, having been gathered together, has become one,
so may thy Church be gathered together,
from the ends of the earth, into thy kingdom,
for thine is the power and the glory for ever.
Amen.

(After the meal)
O God, the almighty, and our Lord Jesus Christ,
the Name that is above every name,
we thank thee and praise thee,
because thou hast considered us worthy to share thy good things, the material food.
We pray and beseech thee, O Lord, that thou wilt give us also the heavenly food.
[Ath. De Virg. 13, 14.]

The Didache is mentioned in this work, and these prayers may therefore have been adapted from it.

The question of the extent to which Jewish worship has influenced or moulded the Christian Liturgy is one to which much attention has been directed. Unfortunately most of the available information about the Jewish forms of worship comes from dates that are too late to give a safe indication of the prayers used in the time of the Apostles. That there was any conscious adoption or imita?tion of Jewish services can hardly be supposed, in view of the antipathy of the early Church to ‘Judaising’. On the other hand, the adherents of Christianity in the earliest days must have unconsciously formed their devotions according to the methods to which they were accustomed. The Eucharist may at first have been moulded somewhat on the lines of the Kiddush, a ceremonial meal held on the eve of the Sabbath and of festivals; if so, it is of little significance, for the Christian sacrament had an inspiration and ideal of its own. More certain is the relationship of the early part of the liturgy with the Sabbath morning Syna?gogue worship. The purposes and the materials at hand for these services of praise, instruction, and prayer were so similar that it was but natural that the Christian system should follow in the accustomed paths, as we shall see it did.

The second century

The writings of Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch give much interesting information about the Eucharist, but throw no light on the development of the rite. There is a long passage in St. Clement’s Epistle to the Romans (cc. 96-8) which has a general resemblance to the Great Thanksgiving of the liturgy, but there is no reason to sup?pose that it is anything more than a fervent prayer which the author composed for the purpose of the epistle, and it has no close affinity to any specifically liturgical formula [cc. 59-61.] (see Appendix A).

Pliny

There is, however, a much quoted and important letter, written to the Emperor Trajan, about AD 112 by the Roman orator, Pliny the younger, governor at that time of Bithynia. In the course of this letter, in which he consults the Emperor on how he ought to treat the Christians, he describes their worship, as it has been reported to him by the Christians themselves.

But they declared that this was the extent of their crime or error, that they were accustomed on a regular day to meet before dawn to sing the praise (carmen dicere) of Christ as a god, and mutually to bind themselves by an oath (sacramentum), not to any crime, but to commit no theft or robbery or adultery, nor to break faith, and, ‘if challenged, not to deny that a trust has been committed to them’. After this they were accustomed to separate, and meet again later to take food, which however is of an ordinary and harmless kind (promiscuum et innoxium). Even this, however, they gave up after I published my edict, by which in accordance with your orders associations (hetaeriae) had been forbidden.
[Ep. x.96.]

Here there were two gatherings of the Christians, one in the early morning and another later in the day. Of the first we are only told that a hymn was sung and an oath made. The second meeting was for the purpose of a meal. It is impossible from the data to come to any definite conclusion as to what these meetings respectively were. The second certainly looks like the Agape rather than the Eucharist, though it may well be the Agape-Eucharist. The hymn of the morning is probably a psalm accompanied by Scripture reading, or a series of acts of worship. The interesting item is the ‘sacramentum‘; one is tempted to see here already the technical term ‘sacrament’, and to suppose that this is therefore the Eucharist already transferred to the morning. It is indeed quite possible that this morning service is the Eucharist, but the word is probably a coincidence, and we cannot say what was the feature that has thus impressed itself on Pliny’s mind. The fact that the Christians gave up the evening feast points to its being an Agape only. The Agape might well be described to a heathen as an ordinary meal; it is more than likely that the witnesses would have said nothing about the essential character of the Eucharist.

Justin Martyr

In the next piece of evidence, however, we find a writer, in defending the Church against the crimes attributed to it, revealing to the heathen something of the nature of the Eucharist, and here we find in Rome for the first time an outline of the liturgy in its main line of descent. St. Justin the Martyr, writing in Rome about AD 145, says:

But, after having washed (i.e. baptized) him who has believed and has been joined to us, we lead him to the place where those we call brethren are assembled, earnestly to offer common prayers for ourselves and for him who has been enlightened, and for all others everywhere, that having learned the truth, we may be accounted as men who practise good lives and keep the commandments, and thus may obtain everlasting salvation. Then breaking off the prayers we salute one another with a kiss. After that, bread is brought to him who presides over the brethren, and a cup of water mixed with wine (ὕδατος καὶ κράματος), And he, when he has received them, sends up praise and glory to the Father of all, through the name of the Son and the Holy Spirit, and makes a thanksgiving (εὐχαριστίαν ποιεῖται) at some length, because God has deigned to give us these things. And when he has finished the prayers and the thanksgivings, all those present assent to what he has said by repeating ‘Amen‘, a Hebrew word signifying: ‘So be it’. When the president has given thanks, and all the people have assented, those who with us are called deacons give to each of those present a portion of the bread and wine and water, over which the thanksgiving has been made, to partake of them, and they carry away some for those who are not present.

And this food is called among us ‘Eucharist’. It is not lawful for any one to partake of it unless he believes that the things that are taught by us are true, and he has been washed in the washing that is for the forgiveness of sins and the new birth, and thus is living as Christ commanded. For we do not receive these things as ordinary bread and ordinary drink, but, as through the word of God Jesus Christ our Saviour became incarnate, and took on flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food over which the thanksgiving has been made by a word of prayer which comes from him. (τὴν δι? εὐχῆς λόγου τοῦ παρ? αὐτοῦ εὐχαριστηθεῖσαν τροφήν), [The absence of articles makes the rendering of this phrase doubtful — It may mean 'by a prayer of the word'.] The very food, that is, by which our blood and flesh are nourished by transformation, are the body and blood of the same incarnate Jesus. For the apostles, in the memoirs which have been made by them, and which are called ‘Gospels’, have thus handed down that Jesus gave them commandment: having taken bread he gave thanks and said: ‘This do in remembrance of me; this is my body’. Likewise also taking the cup and having given thanks he said: ‘This is my blood’, and he gave of it to them alone.

And from that time we always recall these things to memory among ourselves, and those of us that have take care of those that lack, and we always help one another. And in all the offerings we make we praise the Creator of all things through his Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. And on the day which is called Sunday, there is an assembly (συνέλευσις) of all who live in the city and the country into one place, and the Memoirs of the Apostles and the Writings of the Prophets are read as long as there is time. Then, when the reader stops, the president admonishes and exhorts those present to the imitation of these good things. Then we all stand up together and send up prayers, and, as we have said before, when our prayers have ceased, bread is offered, and wine and water, and the president likewise sends up prayers and thanksgivings as much as he is able, and the people assent, saying ‘Amen’. And the distribution and reception is made for each from the things over which thanksgiving has been made, and some is sent by the deacons to those who are not present.
[Apol. i. 67.]

There is no doubt whatever that these two accounts are descriptions of the same rite, the former being for the communion of the newly baptized. If the prayers in the Didache are prayers for the baptismal love-feast, it is a striking fact that in Justin also we have first the neophytes’ Eucharist, and later that of the ordinary Sunday, but Justin makes no mention of the Agape, and the reception of the newly baptized might well have become attached to the eucharistic portion of the double feast instead of to the Agape.

There is now a distinct order of service:

1. Readings (only mentioned for Sunday).
2. Sermon
3. Prayers.
4. Kiss of Peace (only mentioned in the Baptismal Eucharist).
5. The Offering of bread and wine mixed with water.
6. The Prayers and Thanksgivings with Amen.
7. Communion.

The Lections mentioned are ‘the Memoirs of the Apostles or the Writings of the Prophets’; but the ἤ can hardly be pressed, especially in view of μέχρις ἐγχωπεῖ. The ‘Memoirs’ are certainly the Gospels, as Justin explains this in chapter 66. It is a little unusual that the Prophet should follow the Gospel, but there is no reason for supposing that the phrase refers to Christian prophets, as we find the pro?phetic lection holding a place in the earliest liturgies. The expression probably indicates the Old Testament in general.

The Sermon is an explanation of the Lection and its application to the life of the congregation.

Prayers are mentioned twice; in the Baptismal Eucharist we are told that the first prayers (this account does not mention prayer with the thanksgiving) were for all Christian people, that they may live good lives. Indeed, the prayer is apparently not restricted to Christians, for elsewhere Justin says that the Church prayed for the Jews and for all men.

Next comes the Kiss of Peace; though only mentioned in the baptismal form, it was probably used in the general Eucharist also.

Here then we have in broad outline the substance of the later liturgy. Apparently the catechumens have as yet no part in the sacred mysteries, not even in the preparatory portions, so that we can only divide the rite into two parts; the first, down to the Kiss of Peace, is the Pre-Anaphora. containing the Lections, Prayers, Offertory, and Kiss of Peace; the Anaphora, as it will be called later, i.e. the central formula of Consecration, is represented by the ‘Thanksgiving’. What was the form of the Thanksgiving there is no indication. If the words, ‘ by a word of prayer which comes from him’, are to be pressed, it will mean the Lord’s Prayer, rather than the narrative of the Institution, for the latter interpretation is inconsistent with the next sentence, where our Lord’s words are a commandment and not a prayer. This is not to say that the account of the Institution was not included in the prayer, but it is un?likely that it was ‘the word of prayer’.

We may notice the early date of the mixed chalice, and the reservation for the absent. In the rite also the mention of the Holy Spirit in connexion with the offerings should be noted.

Other writers

St. Irenaeus also mentions the Readings, Sermon, Hymns, Offertory, Prayers, and Amen. Two important passages dealing with the consecration will be considered in connexion with the Epiclesis. He gives us none of the forms used in the liturgy, except short formulae like ‘for ever and ever’.

St. Clement of Alexandria has the same features, and in addition he may refer to the Sanctus: ‘We always give thanks to God, as do the creatures (ζῶα – Zoa) who sing to him hymns of praise’, referring to the Seraphim [strom, vii. 12.].

There are some apocryphal works, which must also be quoted, for they contain eucharistic prayers. The first of these is the Acts of John, the authorship of which was attributed by Eusebius, Epiphanius, and others to Leucius Charinus. It belongs to late in the second century, and seems to come from Encratite circles [Woolley dates it AD160.]. This has several eucharistic prayers, of which this is an example:

And having asked for bread he gave thanks thus:

What praise, or what offering (προσφορά)
or what thanksgiving shall we mention in breaking this bread,
but thee alone, Lord Jesus?
We glorify thy Name which was spoken by the Father.
We glorify thy Name, which was spoken by the Son.
We glorify thy opening of ‘the door’.
We glorify the Resurrection which has been manifested to us by thee.
We glorify thy ‘way’.
We glorify thy ‘sowing thy Word’,
thy grace, thy faith, thy ‘salt’, thy ‘pearl of great price’,
thy ‘treasure’, thy ‘plough’, thy ‘net’,
thy greatness, thy crown,
thy being called for us the ‘Son of Man’,
thy gift of truth, thy peace, thy knowledge,
thy power, thy commandment, thy confidence,
thy hope, thy love, thy freedom,
the refuge that there is in thee.
For thou, Lord, only art the root of immortality,
and the fountain of incorruption,
and the throne of eternity.
And thou hast been called all this for us now,
in order that we, calling thee by these names,
may know thy greatness un-perceived by us until now,
and recognized by the pure only,
and reflected in thy manhood alone.
[Acta Johannis, c. 109.]

This prayer, and the others given in the Acts of John [Ibid., cc. 85, 110.] have little relation to the later liturgy, except a faint resemblance to the Anamnesis; but its method has some likeness to similar prayers to be found in the Acts of Thomas, a Syriac Gnostic work, also used by the Encratites and other heretics. Its date is late second or early third century. Here the eucharistic conception is more developed.
He brought bread and wine and placed it on the table, and began to bless it and said:

‘Living bread’, the eaters of which die not,
bread that fillest hungry souls with thy blessing,
thou that art worthy to receive the gift,
and to be for the remission of sins,
that those who eat thee may not die,
we name the Name of the Father over thee.
We name the Name of the Son over thee.
We name the Name of the Spirit over thee,
the exalted Name that is hidden from all.

And he said:

In thy Name, Jesus,
may the power of the blessing and the thanksgiving come upon this bread,
that all the souls which take of it may be renewed,
and their sins forgiven them.
[Wright, Apoc. Acts of App. ii. 268.]

And he brake and gave to Sifur and to his wife and his daughter.

A further example from this book is interesting as providing an example of an Invocation.

And he began to say:

Come, gift of the exalted;
come, perfect mercy;
come, Holy Spirit;
come, revealer of the mysteries of the chosen among the prophets;
come, proclaimer by his Apostles of the combats of our victorious athlete;
come, treasure of majesty;
come, beloved of the mercy of the Most High;
come, thou silent one, revealer of the mysteries of the exalted;
come, utterer of hidden things and shewer of the works of our God;
come, giver of life in secret, and mani?fold in thy deeds;
come, giver of joy and rest to all who cleave unto thee;
come, power of the Father, and wisdom of the Son,
for ye are one in all;
come and communicate with us in this Eucharist which we celebrate,
and in this offering which we offer,
and in this commemoration which we make.

There are several forms of words of Administration:

Let it be unto thee for a remission of transgressions and sins,
and for the everlasting resurrection.
Let this Eucharist be unto you for life and rest,
and not for judgment and vengeance.
Let this Eucharist be unto you for grace and mercy,
and not for judgment and vengeance.
Let this Eucharist be to you for life and rest and joy and health
and for the healing of your souls and your bodies.
[These and other illustrative texts will be found in Woolley, Liturgy of the Primitive Church.]

It is evident that these forms, which differ considerably among themselves, are not in the regular line of development, for the Acts of Thomas was probably written in the early years of the third century, when the normal type of liturgy, still very flexible and adaptable, had already attained a general outline and substance which is recognizably the same as it has in its varying forms to-day. But, with the data at present available, it is impossible to say to what extent at this time those who celebrated the Eucharist in the orthodox Churches were at liberty to depart from the more usual type, and improvise their own prayers; nor can we say whether the type of rite which was ultimately to become universal was always predominant, or whether it was only one of several, and eventually ousted the others.

Woolley suggests that there were three or perhaps four forms current in the second century; one of the ordinary type, one based on Grace before meals, one based on the baptismal formula, blessing the bread and wine in the name of the Holy Trinity, and perhaps one based on the Lord’s Prayer.[Op. cit. 45.]

The third century

At the end of the second century and in the earlier part of the third century the information about the liturgy be?comes more abundant, and we can gather from Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, and other writers many details about the contents of the service. But in none of these are the texts of the rite given. The details derived from them will best be noticed when we consider the liturgy in its separate parts. It is early in the third century that we first come upon a text of at least the central portion of the liturgy, which is reinforced within a few years by other texts and commentaries, which make it clear that at the beginning of the century a certain uni?formity of plan had established itself in various parts of the world, and that that plan was a development of what we have already seen in Justin Martyr.

The ‘Apostolic Tradition’ of Hippolytus

The account referred to is that contained in what was till recently known as the Egyptian Church Order, but is now more suitably called the Apostolic Tradition. This is one of a number of manuals which existed in the early Church, of which the Didache may be considered the earliest; most of them were later than the ‘Apostolic Tradition’. They contain directions for carrying out the social and religious work of the Church, and some of them give the text of the rites to be used. The Apostolic Tradition is known in several forms.

1. In the great Ethiopian law book called the Sinodos. This is usually known as the Ethiopic Church Ordinances or Statutes of the Apostles,
2. In the Coptic Ecclesiastical Canons [Sahidic Ecc. Canons, and Bohairic Apost. Const. and Canons of App.] there is a section generally known as the Egyptian Church Ordinances, which corresponds to (a)
3. A Latin translation, probably of the fourth century, of the same document, commonly referred to as the ‘Verona Latin Fragments’, is also known from a palimpsest of the late fifth century,
4. There is an Arabic version of the Coptic edition. Closely connected with these are two other works, one
5. which has only survived in Arabic, known as the Canons of Hippolytus, and
6. Testamentum Domini, of which a Syriac and an Ethiopian version are known. [Dom Gregory Dix, The Apostolic Tradition, is now the most con?venient edition for English readers. He gives the Latin text as well as the English translation with variants of other versions.] There are other Orders of the same nature as these, and related to them, but only one, the Apostolic Constitutions, to be considered later, is of liturgical interest.

That these works were in some way dependent upon one another has long been known. It was at first thought that the Canons of Hippolytus was the earliest, and that the others derived from it. But of recent years, mainly as a result of the careful work of Dom R. H. Connolly [Camb. Texts and Studies, vol. viii: The so-called Eg. Ch. Order. Connolly was anticipated by Prof. E. Schwartz, but to him is due the conviction now general.R. Lorenz, De Eg. Kerkord. en Hipp. van Rome, challenges his conclusions.], it has become fairly well established that the original is the Apostolic Tradition mentioned above, and that this is the work of Hippolytus, a scholar of great renown in Rome early in the third century, who contributed many import?ant theological works, and whose own life is somewhat a mystery. Eusebius, who wrote about AD 325, says that he was ‘bishop of another Church (than Jerusalem) some?where ‘; but there is evidence that he himself claimed to be Bishop of Rome, though he is not mentioned in any of the lists of the Bishops of Rome. He was certainly in strong opposition to Popes Zephyrinus and Callistus, but he was exiled with Pope Pontianus, and apparently their bodies were brought back together to Rome. It is generally assumed that he was the first Roman Antipope, but it is hard to reconcile that with the fact that he was canonized by the Roman Church. In 1551 there was found in the cemetery of St. Hippolytus in Rome a marble statue of a man seated on a chair which, from the inscription on the chair, was learned to be that of Hippolytus. On the side of the chair is engraved a list of his works and the kalendar that he is known to have constructed. Among the works is included ἁποστολικὴ παράδοσις – apostilike paradosis, which is evidently the work we are now considering. The book must be dated not far from AD 217.

In view of the importance of the liturgy set out in this document it is given here in full. The Coptic and Arabic versions and Canons of Hippolytus do not preserve the liturgy, though the last refers to it. The following is from the Latin version. It immediately follows after the form for the Consecration of a bishop; but although it is the liturgy used in connexion with that function, it seems also to be the one used on ordinary occasions.

And when he has been made bishop all offer him the Kiss of Peace (os pacis), saluting him because of the dignity he has been given.
Then the deacons offer the oblation to him,
and he, laying his hands on it with the whole presbytery, giving thanks, says:

The Lord be with you. And all say: And with thy spirit.
Lift up your hearts. We lift them up unto the Lord.
Let us give thanks unto the Lord. It is meet and right.

And so now he goes on:

We give thanks to thee, O God,
through thy beloved Servant,
[I have used the word 'servant' to translate 'puer' as also παῖς - pais, to preserve the connexion with the many passages where ' servant' is required; but here 'son' would be better.]
Jesus Christ,
whom in the last times thou didst send to us
as Saviour and Redeemer and Messenger (angelus) of thy will;
who is thine inseparable Word,
through whom thou hast made all things,
and in whom thou wast well pleased;
Whom thou didst send from heaven into the womb of the Virgin,
and who having been contained in the womb was incarnate,
and was manifested to be thy Son,
being born of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin,
who fulfilling thy will and purchasing for thee a holy people,
stretched out his arms when he was to suffer,
that by his passion he might free those who believed in thee;
And when he was betrayed to a voluntary passion,
that he might end death, and break the chains of the devil, and tread down hell,
and illuminate the righteous, and determine the end, and manifest the resurrection;
Taking bread and giving thanks to thee, he said:
Take, eat, this is my body which is broken for you;
likewise also the cup saying:
this is my blood, which is shed for you;
as often as ye do this do it in remembrance of me:
Remembering therefore his death and resurrection,
we offer to thee the bread and the cup, giving thanks to thee,
because thou hast made us worthy to stand before thee and minister to thee;
And we pray that thou wilt send thy Holy Spirit upon the oblation of thy holy Church,
that uniting them into one (in unum congregans)
thou wouldst grant to all thy saints that receive it
the fulness of the Holy Spirit for the confirmation of faith in truth,
that we may praise and glorify thee;
Through thy servant Jesus Christ,
through whom be glory and honour to thee,
Father and Son with the Holy Spirit,
in thy holy Church,
now and ever,
Amen.
[Dix, p.6, for Latin original.]

In the Latin version there is then a blessing of oil, cheese, and olives, and in the Ethiopian version a series of com?munion prayers follow, which are not part of the original, though probably early. These will be noticed in their proper place.

Connolly’s argument for assigning the authorship to Hippolytus chiefly depends on the frequent coincidences in language and thought between this and his other writings. This means that the wording is his own, but it may not be so in the Eucharistic prayer. The following passage, however, shows that the great importance Hippolytus attaches to the apostolic tradition concerns the general structure and contents of the rite, and not the mode of expression:

It is not altogether necessary for him to recite the same words as we gave before in his thanksgiving to God, as though he had learned to say them by heart; but let each one pray according to his ability. If indeed he is able to pray suitably a prayer of elevated style, that is well; but if he is only able to pray according to a fixed form (so Dix, lit. ‘ in measure’; cf.’ canonical’) no one may prevent him, so long as his prayer is doctrinally sound. [Eth. vers. Stat. 25. See Dix, 19.]

We shall see this modified liberty of improvisation echoed at a later date.

Baumstark thinks that Hippolytus was so reactionary as to turn back from current practice to a state of things prior to the fusion of the Jewish morning prayers (the Mass of the Catechumens) with the thanksgiving after a feast (the Anaphora), and that this was due to his opposition to the Pope [Irenikon, xi (May-June 1934), 146.]. The book does speak of a morning ‘instruction’ (catechizatio) which the faithful are to attend, when it is held, before going to work; but they are also told to partake of the Eucharist before eating anything else. There is no reason to suppose that there was no ‘ Mass of the Cate?chumens ‘ preceding Hippolytus’s Anaphora; it is naturally not mentioned in the Mass described, as that follows the bishop’s consecration. There are indeed slight indications of the ‘Mass of the Catechumens’.

There can be no doubt that this work of Hippolytus was widely known, at any rate in the fourth century. Its influence has, however, often been exaggerated; for, while it does probably represent fairly well the liturgy in use in both East and West at the end of the second century, and has formed the core of the chief Ethiopian Anaphora, it does not appear to have directly affected the other Eastern liturgies. It is a witness for them rather than a source.

An examination of the Consecration Prayer of the Apostolic Tradition shows a considerable advance on that of Justin. We have now:

1. The Prayers (mentioned in xxii. 6, ‘after the prayers let them give the Kiss of Peace’).
2. Kiss of Peace.
3. Offertory.
4. Sursum Corda.
5. Thanksgiving.
6. An account of the Incarnation.
7. The Institution of the Sacrament.
8. A Memorial of our Lord’s death and resurrection (Anamnesis).
9. The Oblation of the bread and cup.
10. The Invocation of the Holy Spirit.

It will be seen that 5-10 make only one compound sentence with the Oblation and the Invocation as the principal verbs (we offer… and we pray).

Vincent attempted, as did St John Cassian, to find a way that avoided the extremes both of Pelagius and of Augustine. His Commonitories [reminders] offer a guide to distinguish Orthodox teaching from innovation, the maxim now known as the Vincentian Canon: quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est (i.e. only “what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all” is the catholic Faith of Christianity). Vincent taught that the ultimate source of Christian truth was Holy Scripture and that the tradition of the Church was to be invoked to guarantee the correct interpretation of Scripture.

CHAPTER I

I, Peregrinus, who am the least of all the servants of God, remembering the admonition of Scripture, “Ask thy fathers and they will tell thee, thine elders and they will declare unto thee,” and again, “Bow down thine ear to the words of the wise,” and once more, “My son, forget not these instructions, but let thy heart keep my words;” remembering these admonitions, I say, I, Peregrinus, am persuaded, that, the Lord helping me, it will be of no little use and certainly as regards my own feeble powers, it is most necessary, that I should put down in writing the things which I have truthfully received from the holy Fathers, since I shall then have ready at hand wherewith by constant reading to make amends for the weakness of my memory.

To this I am incited not only by regard to the fruit to be expected from my labour but also by the consideration of time and the opportuneness of place:

By the consideration of time, — for seeing that time seizes upon all things human, we also in turn ought to snatch from it something which may profit us to eternal life, especially since a certain awful expectation of the approach of the divine judgment importunately demands increased earnestness in religion, while the subtle craftiness of new heretics calls for no ordinary care and attention.

I am incited also by the opportuneness of place, in that, avoiding the concourse and crowds of cities, I am dwelling in the seclusion of a Monastery, situated in a remote grange, where, I can follow without distraction the Psalmist’s admonition, “Be still, and know that I am God.”

Moreover, it suits well with my purpose in adopting this life; for, whereas I was at one time involved in the manifold and deplorable tempests of secular warfare, I have now at length, under Christ’s auspices, cast anchor in the harbor of religion, a harbor to all always most safe, in order that, having there been freed from the blasts of vanity and pride, and propitiating God by the sacrifice of Christian humility, I may be able to escape not only the shipwrecks of the present life, but also the flames of the world to come.

But now, in the Lord’s name, I will set about the object I have in view; that is to say, to record with the fidelity of a narrator rather than the presumption of an author, the things which our forefathers have handed down to us and committed to our keeping, yet observing this rule in what I write, that I shall by no means touch upon everything that might be said, but only upon what is necessary; nor yet in an ornate and exact style, but in simple and ordinary language, so that the most part may seem to be intimated, rather than set forth in detail. Let those cultivate elegance and exactness who are confident of their ability or are moved by a sense of duty. For me it will be enough to have provided a Commonitory (or Reminder) for myself, such as may aid my memory, or rather, provide against my forgetfulness: which same Commonitory however, I shall endeavor, the Lord helping me, to amend and make more complete by little and little, day by day, by recalling to mind what I have learnt. I mention this at the outset, that if by chance what I write should slip out of my possession and come into the hands of holy men, they may forbear to blame anything therein hastily, when they see that there is a promise that it will yet be amended and made more complete.

CHAPTER II

A general rule for distinguishing the truth of the catholic faith from the falsehood of heresy.

I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the catholic Church.

But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason, — because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and catholic interpretation.

Moreover, in the catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.

CHAPTER III

What is to be done if one or more dissent from the rest.

What then will a catholic Christian do, if a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member? What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty.

But what, if in antiquity itself there be found error on the part of two or three men, or at any rate of a city or even of a province? Then it will be his care by all means, to prefer the decrees, if such there be, of an ancient General Council to the rashness and ignorance of a few. But what, if some error should spring up on which no such decree is found to bear? Then he must collate and consult and interrogate the opinions of the ancients, of those, namely, who, though living in divers times and places, yet continuing in the communion and faith of the one catholic Church, stand forth acknowledged and approved authorities: and whatsoever he shall ascertain to have been held, written, taught, not by one or two of these only, but by all, equally, with one consent, openly, frequently, persistently, that he must understand that he himself also is to believe without any doubt or hesitation.

CHAPTER IV

The evil resulting from the bringing in of novel doctrine shown in the instances of the Donatists and Arians.

But that we may make what we say more intelligible, we must illustrate it by individual examples, and enlarge upon it somewhat more fully, lest by aiming at too great brevity important matters be hurried over and lost sight of.

In the time of Donatus, from whom his followers were called Donatists, when great numbers in Africa were rushing headlong into their own mad error, and unmindful of their name, their religion, their profession, were preferring the sacrilegious temerity of one man before the Church of Christ, then they alone throughout Africa were safe within the sacred precincts of the catholic faith, who, detesting the profane schism, continued in communion with the universal Church, leaving to posterity an illustrious example, how, and how well in future the soundness of the whole body should be preferred before the madness of one, or at most of a few.

So also when the Arian poison had infected not an insignificant portion of the Church but almost the whole world, so that a sort of blindness had fallen upon almost all the bishops of the Latin tongue, circumvented partly by force partly by fraud and was preventing them from seeing what was most expedient to be done in the midst of so much confusion, then whoever was a true lover and worshipper of Christ, preferring the ancient belief to the novel misbelief, escaped the pestilent infection.

By the peril of which time was abundantly shown how great a calamity the introduction of a novel doctrine causes. For then truly not only interests of small account, but others of the very gravest importance, were subverted. For not only affinities, relationships, friendships, families, but moreover, cities, peoples, provinces, nations, at last the whole Roman Empire, were shaken to their foundation and ruined. For when this same profane Arian novelty, like a Bellona or a Fury, had first taken captive the Emperor, and had then subjected all the principal persons of the palace to new laws, from that time it never ceased to involve everything in confusion, disturbing all things, public and private, sacred and profane, paying no regard to what was good and true, but, as though holding a position of authority, smiting whomsoever it pleased. Then wives were violated, widows ravished, virgins profaned, monasteries demolished, clergymen ejected, the inferior clergy scourged, priests driven into exile, jails, prisons, mines, filled with saints, of whom the greater part, forbidden to enter into cities, thrust forth from their homes to wander in deserts and caves, among rocks and the haunts of wild beasts, exposed to nakedness, hunger, thirst, were worn out and consumed. Of all of which was there any other cause than that, while human superstitions are being brought in to supplant heavenly doctrine, while well established antiquity is being subverted by wicked novelty, while the institutions of former ages are being set at naught, while the decrees of our fathers are being rescinded, while the determinations of our ancestors are being torn in pieces, the lust of profane and novel curiosity refuses to restrict itself within the most chaste limits of hallowed and uncorrupt antiquity?

CHAPTER V

The Example set us by the martyrs, whom no force could hinder from defending the Faith of their predecessors.

But it may be, we invent these charges out of hatred to novelty and zeal for antiquity. Whoever is disposed to listen to such an insinuation, let him at least believe the blessed Ambrose, who, deploring the acerbity of the time, says, in the second book of his work addressed to the Emperor Gratian: “Enough now, O God Almighty! have we expiated with our own ruin, with our own blood, the slaughter of Confessors, the banishment of priests, and the wickedness of such extreme impiety. It is clear, beyond question, that they who have violated the faith cannot remain in safety.”

And again in the third book of the same work, “Let us observe the precepts of our predecessors, and not transgress with rude rashness the landmarks which we have inherited from them. That sealed Book of Prophecy no Elders, no Powers, no Angels, no Archangels, dared to open. To Christ alone was reserved the prerogative of explaining it. Who of us may dare to unseal the Sacerdotal Book sealed by Confessors, and consecrated already by the martyrdom of numbers, which they who had been compelled by force to unseal afterwards resealed, condemning the fraud which had been practised upon them; while they who had not ventured to tamper with it proved themselves Confessors and martyrs? How can we deny the faith of those whose victory we proclaim?”

We proclaim it truly, O venerable Ambrose, we proclaim it, and applaud and admire. For who is there so demented, who, though not able to overtake, does not at least earnestly desire to follow those whom no force could deter from defending the faith of their ancestors, no threats, no blandishments, not life, not death, not the palace, not the Imperial Guards, not the Emperor, not the empire itself, not men, not demons? — whom, I say, as a recompense for their steadfastness in adhering to religious antiquity, the Lord counted worthy of so great a reward, that by their instrumentality He restored churches which had been destroyed, quickened with new life peoples who were spiritually dead, replaced on the heads of priests the crowns which had been torn from them, washed out those abominable, I will not say letters, but blotches (non literas, sed lituras) of novel impiety, with a fountain of believing tears, which God opened in the hearts of the bishops?lastly, when almost the whole world was overwhelmed by a ruthless tempest of unlooked for heresy, recalled it from novel misbelief to the ancient faith, from the madness of novelty to the soundness of antiquity, from the blindness of novelty to pristine light?

But in this divine virtue, as we may call it, exhibited by these Confessors, we must note especially that the defence which they then undertook in appealing to the Ancient Church, was the defence, not of a part, but of the whole body. For it was not right that men of such eminence should uphold with so huge an effort the vague and conflicting notions of one or two men, or should exert themselves in the defence of some ill-advised combination of some petty province; but adhering to the decrees and definitions of the universal priesthood of Holy Church, the heirs of Apostolic and catholic truth, they chose rather to deliver up themselves than to betray the faith of universality and antiquity. For which cause they were deemed worthy of so great glory as not only to be accounted Confessors, but rightly, and deservedly to be accounted foremost among Confessors.

CHAPTER VI

The example of Pope Stephen in resisting the iteration of Baptism.

Great then is the example of these same blessed men, an example plainly divine, and worthy to be called to mind, and meditated upon continually by every true catholic, who, like the seven-branched candlestick, shining with the sevenfold light of the Holy Spirit, showed to posterity how thenceforward the audaciousness of profane novelty, in all the several rantings of error, might be crushed by the authority of hallowed antiquity.

Nor is there anything new in this. For it has always been the case in the Church, that the more a man is under the influence of religion, so much the more prompt is he to oppose innovations. Examples there are without number: but to be brief, we will take one, and that, in preference to others, from the Apostolic See, so that it may be clearer than day to every one with how great energy, with how great zeal, with how great earnestness, the blessed successors of the blessed apostles have constantly defended the integrity of the religion which they have once received.

Once on a time then, Agrippinus, bishop of Carthage, of venerable memory, held the doctrine — and he was the first who held it — that Baptism ought to be repeated, contrary to the divine canon, contrary to the rule of the universal Church, contrary to the customs and institutions of our ancestors. This innovation drew after it such an amount of evil, that it not only gave an example of sacrilege to heretics of all sorts, but proved an occasion of error even to certain catholic Christians.

When then all men protested against the novelty, and the priesthood everywhere, each as his zeal prompted him, opposed it, Pope Stephen of blessed memory, Prelate of the Apostolic See, in conjunction indeed with his colleagues but yet himself the foremost, withstood it, thinking it right, I doubt not, that as he exceeded all others in the authority of his place, so he should also in the devotion of his faith. In fine, in an epistle sent at the time to Africa, he laid down this rule: “Let there be no innovation — nothing but what has been handed down.” For that holy and prudent man well knew that true piety admits no other rule than that whatsoever things have been faithfully received from our fathers the same are to be faithfully consigned to our children; and that it is our duty, not to lead religion whither we would, but rather to follow religion whither it leads; and that it is the part of Christian modesty and gravity not to hand down our own beliefs or observances to those who come after us, but to preserve and keep what we have received from those who went before us. What then was the issue of the whole matter? What but the usual and customary one? Antiquity was retained, novelty was rejected.

But it may be, the cause of innovation at that time lacked patronage. On the contrary, it had in its favor such powerful talent, such copious eloquence, such a number of partisans, so much resemblance to truth, such weighty support in Scripture (only interpreted in a novel and perverse sense), that it seems to me that that whole conspiracy could not possibly have been defeated, unless the sole cause of this extraordinary stir, the very novelty of what was so undertaken, so defended, so praised, had proved wanting to it. In the end, what result, under God, had that same African Council or decree? None whatever. The whole affair, as though a dream, a fable, a thing of no possible account, was annulled, cancelled, and trodden underfoot.

And O marvelous revolution! The authors of this same doctrine are judged catholic Christians, the followers heretics; the teachers are absolved, the disciples condemned; the writers of the books will be children of the Kingdom, the defenders of them will have their portion in Hell. For who is so demented as to doubt that that blessed light among all holy bishops and martyrs, Cyprian, together with the rest of his colleagues, will reign with Christ; or, who on the other hand so sacrilegious as to deny that the Donatists and those other pests, who boast the authority of that council for their iteration of baptism, will be consigned to eternal fire with the devil?

CHAPTER VII

How heretics craftily cite obscure passages in ancient writers in support of their own novelties.

This condemnation, indeed, seems to have been providentially promulgated as though with a special view to the fraud of those who, contriving to dress up a heresy under a name other than its own, get hold often of the works of some ancient writer, not very clearly expressed, which, owing to the very obscurity of their own doctrine, have the appearance of agreeing with it, so that they get the credit of being neither the first nor the only persons who have held it. This wickedness of theirs, in my judgment, is doubly hateful: first, because they are not afraid to invite others to drink of the poison of heresy; and secondly, because with profane breath, as though fanning smouldering embers into flame, they blow upon the memory of each holy man, and spread an evil report of what ought to be buried in silence by bringing it again under notice, thus treading in the footsteps of their father Ham, who not only forebore to cover the nakedness of the venerable Noah, but told it to the others that they might laugh at it, offending thereby so grievously against the duty of filial piety, that even his descendants were involved with him in the curse which he drew down, widely differing from those blessed brothers of his, who would neither pollute their own eyes by looking upon the nakedness of their revered father, nor would suffer others to do so, but went backwards, as the Scripture says, and covered him, that is, they neither approved nor betrayed the fault of the holy man, for which cause they were rewarded with a benediction on themselves and their posterity.

But to return to the matter in hand: It behooves us then to have a great dread of the crime of perverting the faith and adulterating religion, a crime from which we are deterred not only by the Church’s discipline, but also by the censure of apostolic authority. For every one knows how gravely, how severely, how vehemently, the blessed apostle Paul inveighs against certain, who, with marvelous levity, had “been so soon removed from him who had called them to the grace of Christ to another Gospel, which was not another;” “who had heaped to themselves teachers after their own lusts, turning away their ears from the truth, and being turned aside unto fables;” “having damnation because they had cast off their first faith;” who had been deceived by those of whom the same apostle writes to the Roman Christians, “Now, I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them. For they that are such serve not the Lord Christ, but their own belly, and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.” “who enter into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with diverse lusts, ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth;” “vain talkers and deceivers, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake;” “men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith;” “proud knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, destitute of the truth, supposing that godliness is gain,” “withal learning to be idle, wandering about from house to house, and not only idle, but tattlers also and busy-bodies, speaking things which they ought not,” “who having put away a good conscience have made shipwreck concerning the faith;” “whose profane and vain babblings increase unto more ungodliness, and their word doth eat as doth a cancer.” Well, also, is it written of them: “But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.”

CHAPTER VIII

Exposition of St. Paul’s words in Galatians chapter 1

When therefore certain of this sort wandering about provinces and cities, and carrying with them their venal errors, had found their way to Galatia, and when the Galatians, on hearing them, nauseating the truth, and vomiting up the manna of Apostolic and catholic doctrine, were delighted with the garbage of heretical novelty, the apostle putting in exercise the authority of his office, delivered his sentence with the utmost severity, “Though we,” he says, “or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”

Why does he say “Though we“? why not rather “though I“? He means, “though Peter; though Andrew; though John; in a word, though the whole company of apostles preach unto you other than we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” Tremendous severity! He spares neither himself nor his fellow apostles, so he may preserve unaltered the faith which was at first delivered. Nay, this is not all. He goes on “Even though an angel from heaven preach unto you any other Gospel than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” It was not enough for the preservation of the faith once delivered to have referred to man; he must needs comprehend angels also. “Though we,” he says, “or an angel from heaven.” Not that the holy angels of heaven are now capable of sinning. But what he means is: Even if that were to happen which cannot happen, — if any one, be he who he may, attempt to alter the faith once for all delivered, let him be accursed.

But it may be, he spoke thus in the first instance inconsiderately, giving vent to human impetuosity rather than expressing himself under divine guidance. Far from it. He follows up what he had said, and urges it with intense reiterated earnestness, “As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other Gospel to you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” He does not say, “If any man deliver to you another message than that you have received, let him be blessed, praised, welcomed,” — no; but “let him be accursed,” [anathema] i.e., separated, segregated, excluded, lest the dire contagion of a single sheep contaminate the guiltless flock of Christ by his poisonous intermixture with them.

CHAPTER IX

His warning to the Galatians a warning to all.

But, possibly, this warning was intended for the Galatians only. Be it so; then those other exhortations which follow in the same Epistle were intended for the Galatians only, such as, “If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit; let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another,” etc.; which alternative if it be absurd, and the injunctions were meant equally for all, then it follows, that as these injunctions which relate to morals, so those warnings which relate to faith are meant equally for all; and just as it is unlawful for all to provoke one another, or to envy one another, so, likewise, it is unlawful for all to receive any other Gospel than that which the catholic Church preaches everywhere.

Or perhaps the anathema pronounced on any one who should preach another Gospel than that which had been preached was meant for those times, not for the present. Then, also, the exhortation, “Walk in the Spirit and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh,” was meant for those times, not for the present. But if it be both impious and pernicious to believe this, then it follows necessarily, that as these injunctions are to be observed by all ages, so those warnings also which forbid alteration of the faith are warnings intended for all ages. To preach any doctrine therefore to catholic Christians other than what they have received never was lawful, never is lawful, never will be lawful: and to anathematize those who preach anything other than what has once been received, always was a duty, always is a duty, always will be a duty.

Which being the case, is there any one either so audacious as to preach any other doctrine than that which the Church preaches, or so inconstant as to receive any other doctrine than that which he has received from the Church? That elect vessel, that teacher of the Gentiles, that trumpet of the apostles, that preacher whose commission was to the whole earth, that man who was caught up to heaven, cries and cries again in his Epistles to all, always, in all places, “If any man preach any new doctrine, let him be accursed.” On the other hand, an ephemeral, moribund set of frogs, fleas, and flies, such as the Pelagians, call out in opposition, and that to catholic Christians, “Take our word, follow our lead, accept our exposition, condemn what you used to hold, hold what you used to condemn, cast aside the ancient faith, the institutes of your fathers, the trusts left for you by your ancestors and receive instead — what? I tremble to utter it: for it is so full of arrogance and self-conceit, that it seems to me that not only to affirm it, but even to refute it, cannot be done without guilt in some sort.

CHAPTER X

Why eminent men are permitted by God to become authors of novelties in the Church.

But some one will ask, How is it then, that certain excellent persons, and of position in the Church, are often permitted by God to preach novel doctrines to catholic Christians? A proper question, certainly, and one which ought to be very carefully and fully dealt with, but answered at the same time, not in reliance upon one’s own ability, but by the authority of the divine Law, and by appeal to the Church’s determination.

Let us listen, then, to Holy Moses, and let him teach us why learned men, and such as because of their knowledge are even called Prophets by the apostle, are sometimes permitted to put forth novel doctrines, which the Old Testament is wont, by way of allegory, to call “strange gods,” forasmuch as heretics pay the same sort of reverence to their notions that the Gentiles do to their gods.

Blessed Moses, then, writes thus in Deuteronomy: “If there arise among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams,” that is, one holding office as a Doctor in the Church, who is believed by his disciples or auditors to teach by revelation: well, — what follows? “and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass whereof he spake,” — he is pointing to some eminent doctor, whose learning is such that his followers believe him not only to know things human, but, moreover, to foreknow things superhuman, such as, their disciples commonly boast, were Valentinus, Donatus, Photinus, Apollinaris, and the rest of that sort! What next? “And shall say to thee, Let us go after other gods, whom thou knowest not, and serve them.” What are those other gods but strange errors which thou knowest not, that is, new and such as were never heard of before? “And let us serve them;” that is, “Let us believe them, follow them.” What last? “Thou shall not hearken to the words of that prophet or dreamer of dreams.” And why, I pray thee, does not God forbid to be taught what God forbids to be heard? “For the Lord, your God, trieth you, to know whether you love Him with all your heart and with all your soul.” The reason is clearer than day why Divine Providence sometimes permits certain doctors of the Churches to preach new doctrines — “That the Lord your God may try you;” he says. And assuredly it is a great trial when one whom thou believest to be a prophet, a disciple of prophets, a doctor and defender of the truth, whom thou hast folded to thy breast with the utmost veneration and love, when such a one of a sudden secretly and furtively brings in noxious errrors, which thou canst neither quickly detect, being held by the prestige of former authority, nor lightly think it right to condemn, being prevented by affection for thine old master.

CHAPTER XI

Examples from Church history, confirming the words of Moses, — Nestorius, Photinus, Apollinaris.

Here, perhaps, some one will require us to illustrate the words of holy Moses by examples from Church History. The demand is a fair one, nor shall it wait long for satisfaction.

For to take first a very recent and very plain case: what son of trial, think we, was that which the Church had experience of the other day, when that unhappy Nestorius, all at once metamorphosed from a sheep into a wolf, began to make havoc of the flock of Christ, while as yet a large proportion of those whom he was devouring believed him to be a sheep, and consequently were the more exposed to his attacks? For who would readily suppose him to be in error, who was known to have been elected by the high choice of the Emperor, and to be held in the greatest esteem by the priesthood? who would readily suppose him to be in error, who, greatly beloved by the holy brethren, and in high favor with the populace, expounded the Scriptures in public daily, and confuted the pestilent errors both of Jews and Heathens? Who could choose but believe that his teaching was Orthodox, his preaching Orthodox, his belief Orthodox, who, that he might open the way to one heresy of his own, was zealously inveighing against the blasphemies of all heresies? But this was the very thing which Moses says: “The Lord your God doth try you that He may know whether you love Him or not.”

Leaving Nestorius, in whom there was always more that men admired than they were profited by, more of show than of reality, whom natural ability, rather than divine grace, magnified, for a time in the opinion of the common people, let us pass on to speak of those who, being persons of great attainments and of much industry, proved no small trial to catholic Christians. Such, for instance, was Photinus, in Pannonia, who, in the memory of our fathers, is said to have been a trial to the Church of Sirmium, where, when he had been raised to the priesthood with universal approbation, and had discharged the office for some time as a catholic Christian, all of a sudden, like that evil prophet or dreamer of dreams whom Moses refers to, he began to persuade the people whom God had entrusted to his charge, to follow “strange gods,” that is, strange errors, which before they knew not. But there was nothing unusual in this: the mischief of the matter was, that for the perpetration of so great wickedness he availed himself of no ordinary helps. For he was of great natural ability and of powerful eloquence, and had a wealth of learning, disputing and writing copiously and forcibly in both languages, as his books which remain. composed partly in Greek, partly in Latin, testify. But happily the sheep of Christ committed to him, vigilant and wary for the catholic faith, quickly turned their eyes to the premonitory words of Moses, and, though admiring the eloquence of their prophet and pastor, were not blind to the trial. For from thenceforward they began to flee from him as a wolf, whom formerly they had followed as the ram of the flock.

Nor is it only in the instance of Photinus that we learn the danger of this trial to the Church, and are admonished withal of the need Of double diligence in guarding the faith. Apollinaris holds out a like warning. For he gave rise to great burning questions and sore perplexities among his disciples, the Church’s authority drawing them one way, their Master’s influence the opposite; so that, wavering and tossed hither and thither between the two, they were at a loss what course to take.

But perhaps he was a person of no weight of character. On the contrary, he was so eminent and so highly esteemed that his word would only too readily be taken on whatsoever subject. For what could exceed his acuteness, his adroitness, his learning? How many heresies did he, in many volumes, annihilate! How many errors, hostile to the faith, did he confute! A proof of which is that most noble and vast work, of not less than thirty books, in which, with a great mass of arguments, he repelled the insane calumnies of Porphyry. It would take a long time to enumerate all his works, which assuredly would have placed him on a level with the very chief of the Church’s builders, if that profane last of heretical curiosity had not led him to devise I know not what novelty which as though through the contagion of a sort of leprosy both defiled all his labours, and caused his teachings to be pronounced the Church’s trial instead of the Church’s edification.

CHAPTER XII

A fuller account of the errors of Photinus, Apollinaris and Nestorius.

Here, possibly, I may be asked for some account of the above mentioned heresies; those, namely, of Nestorius, Apollinaris, and Photinus. This, indeed, does not belong to the matter in hand: for our object is not to enlarge upon the errors of individuals, but to produce instances of a few, in whom the applicability of Moses’ words may be evidently and clearly seen; that is to say, that if at any time some Master in the Church, himself also a prophet in interpreting the mysteries of the prophets, should attempt to introduce some novel doctrine into the Church of God, Divine Providence permits this to happen in order to try us. It will be useful, therefore, by way of digression, to give a brief account of the opinions of the above-named heretics, Photinus, Apollinaris, Nestorius.

The heresy of Photinus, then, is as follows: He says that God is singular and sole, and is to be regarded as the Jews regarded Him. He denies the completeness of the Trinity, and does not believe that there is any Person of God the Word, or any Person of the Holy Ghost. Christ he affirms to be a mere man, whose original was from Mary. Hence he insists with the utmost obstinacy that we are to render worship only to the Person of God the Father, and that we are to honour Christ as man only. This is the doctrine of Photinus.

Apollinaris, affecting to agree with the Church as to the unity of the Trinity, though not this even with entire soundness of belief, as to the Incarnation of the Lord, blasphemes openly. For he says that the flesh of our Saviour was either altogether devoid of a human soul, or, at all events, was devoid of a rational soul. Moreover, he says that this same flesh of the Lord was not received from the flesh of the holy Virgin Mary, but came down from heaven into the Virgin; and, ever wavering and undecided, he preaches one while that it was co-eternal with God the Word, another that it was made of the divine nature of the Word. For, denying that there are two substances in Christ, one divine, the other human, one from the Father, the other from his mother, he holds that the very nature of the Word was divided, as though one part of it remained in God, the other was converted into flesh: so that whereas the truth says that of two substances there is one Christ, he affirms, contrary to the truth, that of the one divinity of Christ there are become two substances. This, then, is the doctrine of Apollinaris.

Nestorius, whose disease is of an opposite kind, while pretending that he holds two distinct substances in Christ, brings in of a sudden two Persons, and with unheard of wickedness would have two sons of God, two Christs, — one, God, the other, man, one, begotten of his Father, the other, born of his mother. For which reason he maintains that Saint Mary ought to be called, not Theotokos (the mother of God), but Christotokos (the mother of Christ), seeing that she gave birth not to the Christ who is God, but to the Christ who is man. But if any one supposes that in his writings he speaks of one Christ, and preaches one Person of Christ, let him not lightly credit it. For either this is a crafty device, that by means of good he may the more easily persuade evil, according to that of the apostle, “That which is good was made death to me,” — either, I say, he craftily affects in some places in his writings to believe one Christ and one Person of Christ, or else he says that after the Virgin had brought forth, the two Persons were united into one Christ, though at the time of her conception or parturition, and for some short time afterwards, there were two Christs; so that forsooth, though Christ was born at first an ordinary man and nothing more, and not as yet associated in unity of Person with the Word of God, yet afterwards the Person of the Word assuming descended upon Him; and though now the Person assumed remains in the glory of God, yet once there would seem to have been no difference between Him and all other men.

CHAPTER XIII

The catholic doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation explained.

In these ways then do these rabid dogs, Nestorius, Apollinaris, and Photinus, bark against the catholic faith: Photinus, by denying the Trinity; Apollinaris, by teaching that the nature of the Word is mutable, and refusing to acknowledge that there are two substances in Christ, denying moreover either that Christ had a soul at all, or, at all events, that he had a rational soul, and asserting that the Word of God supplied the place of the rational soul; Nestorius, by affirming that there were always or at any rate that once there were two Christs. But the catholic Church, holding the right faith both concerning God and concerning our Saviour, is guilty of blasphemy neither in the mystery of the Trinity, nor in that of the Incarnation of Christ. For she worships both one Godhead in the plenitude of the Trinity, and the equality of the Trinity in one and the same majesty, and she confesses one Christ Jesus, not two; the same both God and man, the one as truly as the other. One Person indeed she believes in Him, but two substances; two substances but one Person: Two substances, because the Word of God is not mutable, so as to be convertible into flesh; one Person, lest by acknowledging two sons she should seem to worship not a Trinity, but a Quaternity.

But it will be well to unfold this same doctrine more distinctly and explicitly again and again.

In God there is one substance, but three Persons; in Christ two substances, but one Person. In the Trinity, another and another Person, not another and another substance (distinct Persons, not distinct substances); in the Saviour another and another substance, not another and another Person, (distinct substances, not distinct Persons. How in the Trinity another and another Person (distinct Persons) not another and another substance (distinct substances)? Because there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Ghost; but yet there is not another and another nature (distinct natures) but one and the same natUre. How in the Saviour another and another substance, not another and another Person (two distinct substances, not two distinct Persons)? Because there is one substance of the Godhead, another of the manhood. But yet the Godhead and the manhood are not another and another Person (two distinct Persons), but one and the same fist, one and the same Son of God, and one and the same Person of one and the same Christ and Son of God, in like manner as in man the flesh is one thing and the soul another, but one and the same man, both soul and flesh. In Peter and Paul the saul is one thing, the flesh another; yet there are not two Peters, — one soul, the other flesh, or two Pauls, one soul, the other flesh, — but one and the same Peter, and one and the same Paul, consisting each of two diverse natures, soul and body. Thus, then, in one and the same Christ there are two substances, one divine, the other human; one of (ex) God the Father, the other of (ex) the Virgin Mother; one co-eternal with and co-equal with the Father, the other temporal and inferior to the Father; one consubstantial with his Father, the other, consubstantial with his Mother, but one and the same Christ in both substances. There is not, therefore, one Christ being God and the other, man; not one uncreated, the other created; not one impassible, the other passible; not one equal to the Father, the other inferior to the Father; not one of (ex) his Father, the other of (ex) his Mother, but one and the same Christ, God and man, the same uncreated and created, the same unchangeable and incapable of suffering, the same acquainted by experience with both change and suffering, the same equal to the Father and inferior to the Father, the same begotten of the Father before time, (“before the world”), the same born of his mother in time (“in the world”), perfect God, perfect Man. In God supreme divinity, in man perfect humanity. Perfect humanity, I say, forasmuch as it hath both soul and flesh; the flesh, very flesh; our flesh, his mother’s flesh; the soul, intellectual, endowed with mind and reason. There is then in Christ the Word, the soul, the flesh; but the whole is one Christ, one Son of God, and one our Saviour and Redeemer: One, not by I know not what corruptible confusion of Godhead and manhood, but by a certain entire and singular unity of Person. For the conjunction hath not converted and changed the one nature into the other, (which is the characteristic error of the Arians), but rather hath in such wise compacted both into one, that while there always remains in Christ the singularity of one and the self-same Person, there abides eternally withal the characteristic property of each nature; whence it follows, that neither doth God (i.e., the divine nature) ever begin to be body, nor doth the body ever cease to be body. The which may be illustrated in human nature: for not only in the present life, but in the future also, each individual man will consist of soul and body; nor will his body ever be converted into soul, or his soul into body; but while each individual man will live for ever, the distinction between the two substances will continue in each individual man for ever. So likewise in Christ each substance will for ever retain its own characteristic property, yet without prejudice to the unity of Person.

CHAPTER XIV

Jesus Christ is Man in truth, not in semblance.

But when we use the word “Person,” and say that God became man by means of a Person, there is reason to fear that our meaning may be taken to be, that God the Word assumed our nature merely in imitation, and performed the actions of man, being man not in reality, but only in semblance, just as in a theatre, one man within a brief space represents several persons, not one of whom himself is. For when one undertakes to sustain the part of another, he performs the offices, or does the acts, of the person whose part he sustains, but he is not himself that person. So, to take an illustration from secular life and one in high favour with the Manichees, when a tragedian represents a priest or a king, he is not really a priest or a king. For, as soon as the play is over, the person or character whom he represented ceases to be. God forbid that we should have anything to do with such nefarious and wicked mockery. Be it the infatuation of the Manichees, those preachers of hallucination, who say that the Son of God, God, was not a human person really and truly, but that He counterfeited the person of a man in reigned conversation and manner of life.

But the catholic Faith teaches that the Word of God became man in such wise, that He took upon Him our nature, not feignedly and in semblance, but in reality and truth, and performed human actions, not as though He were imitating the actions of another, but as performing His own, and as being in reality the person whose part He sustained. Just as we ourselves also, when we speak, reason, live, subsist, do not imitate men, but are men. Peter and John, for instance, were men, not by imitation, but by being men in reality. Paul did not counterfeit an apostle, or feign himself to be Paul, but was an apostle, was Paul. So, also, that which God the Word did, in His condescension, in assuming and having flesh, in speaking, acting, and suffering, through the instrumentality Of flesh, yet without any marring of His own divine nature, came in one word to this: — He did not imitate or feign Himself to be perfect man, but He shewed Himself to be very man in reality and truth. Therefore, as the soul united to the flesh, but yet not changed into flesh, does not imitate man, but is man, and man not feignedly but substantially, so also God the Word, without any conversion of Himself, in uniting Himself to man, became man, not by confusion, not by imitation, but by actually being and subsisting. Away then, once and for all, with the notion of His Person as of an assumed fictitious character, where always what is is one thing, what is counterfeited another, where the man who acts never is the man whose part he acts. God forbid that we should believe God the Word to have taken upon Himself the person of a man in this illusory way. Rather let us acknowledge that while His own unchangeable substance remained, and while He took upon Himself the nature of perfect man, Himself actually was flesh, Himself actually was man, Himself actually was personally man; not feignedly, but in truth, not in imitation, but in substance; not, finally, so as to cease to be when the performance was over, but so as to be, and continue to be substantially and permanently.

CHAPTER XV

The union of the divine with the human nature took place in the very conception of Christ. The appellation “The Mother of God.”

This unity of Person, then, in Christ was not effected after His birth of the Virgin, but was compacted and perfected in her very womb. For we must take most especial heed that we confess Christ not only one, but always one. For it were intolerable blasphemy, if while thou dost confess Him one now, thou shouldst maintain that once He was not one, but two; one forsooth since His baptism, but two at His birth. Which monstrous sacrilege we shall assuredly in no wise avoid unless we acknowledge the manhood united to the Godhead (but by unity of Person), not from the ascension, or the resurrection, or the baptism, but even in His mother, even in the womb, even in the Virgin’s very conception. In consequence of which unity of Person, both those attributes which are proper to God are ascribed to man, and those which are proper to the flesh to God, indifferently and promiscuously. For hence it is written by divine guidance, on the one hand, that the Son of man came down from heaven; and on the other, that the Lord of glory was crucified on earth. Hence it is also that since the Lord’s flesh was made, since the Lord’s flesh was created, the very Word of God is said to have been made, the very omniscient Wisdom of God to have been created, just as prophetically His hands and His feet are described as having been pierced. From this unity of Person it follows, by reason of a like mystery, that, since the flesh of the Word was born of an undefiled mother, God the Word Himself is most catholicly believed, most impiously denied, to have been born of the Virgin; which being the case, God forbid that any one should seek to defraud Holy Mary of her prerogative of divine grace and her special glory. For by the singular gift of Him who is our Lord and God, and withal, her own son, she is to be confessed most truly and most blessedly — The mother of God “Theotokos,” but not in the sense in which it is imagined by a certain impious heresy which maintains, that she is to be called the Mother of God for no other reason than because she gave birth to that man who afterwards became God, just as we speak of a woman as the mother of a priest, or the mother of a bishop, meaning that she was such, not by giving birth to one already a priest or a bishop, but by giving birth to one who afterwards became a priest or a bishop. Not thus, I say, was the holy Mary “Theotocos,” the mother of God, but rather, as was said before, because in her sacred womb was wrought that most sacred mystery whereby, on account of the singular and unique unity of Person, as the Word in flesh is flesh, so Man in God is God.

CHAPTER XVI

Recapitulation of what was said of the catholic Faith and of diverse heresies

But now that we may refresh our remembrance of what has been briefly said concerning either the afore-mentioned heresies or the catholic Faith, let us go over it again more briefly and concisely, that being repeated it may be more thoroughly understood, and being pressed home more firmly held.

Accursed then be Photinus, who does not receive the Trinity complete, but asserts that Christ is mere man.

Accursed be Apollinaris, who affirms that the Godhead of Christ is marred by conversion, and defrauds Him of the property of perfect humanity.

Accursed be Nestorius, who denies that God was born of the Virgin, affirms two Christs, and rejecting the belief of the Trinity, brings in a Quaternity.

But blessed be the catholic Church, which worships one God in the completeness of the Trinity, and at the same time adores the equality of the Trinity in the unity of the Godhead, so that neither the singularity of substance confounds the propriety of the Persons, not the distinction of the Persons in the Trinity separates the unity of the Godhead.

Blessed, I say, be the Church, which believes that in Christ there are two true and perfect substances but one Person, so that neither doth the distinction of natures divide the unity of Person, nor the unity of Person confound the distinction of substances.

Blessed, I say, be the Church, which understands God to have become Man, not by conversion of nature, but by reason of a Person, but of a Person not feigned and transient, but substantial and permanent.

Blessed, I say, be the Church, which declares this unity of Person to be so real and effectual, that because of it, in a marvellous and ineffable mystery, she ascribes divine attributes to man, and human to God; because of it, on the one hand, she does not deny that Man, as God, came down from heaven, on the other, she believes that God, as Man, was created, suffered, and was crucified on earth; because of it, finally, she confesses Man the Son of God, and God the Son of the Virgin.

Blessed, then, and venerable, blessed and most sacred, and altogether worthy to be compared with those celestial praises of the Angelic Host, be the confession which ascribes glory to the one Lord God with a threefold ascription of holiness. For this reason moreover she insists emphatically upon the oneness of the Person of Christ, that she may not go beyond the mystery of the Trinity (that is by making in effect a Quaternity.)

Thus much by way of digression. On another occasion, please God, we will deal with the subject and unfold it more fully. Now let us return to the matter in hand.

CHAPTER XVII

The error of Origen a great trial to the Church.

We said above that in the Church of God the teacher’s error is the people’s trial, a trial by so much the greater in proportion to the greater learning of the erring teacher. This we showed first by the authority of Scripture, and then by instances from Church History, of persons who having at one time had the reputation of being sound in the faith, eventually either fell away to some sect already in existence, or else founded a heresy of their own. An important fact truly, useful to be learnt, and necessary to be remembered, and to be illustrated and enforced again and again, by example upon example, in order that all true catholic Christians may understand that it behooves them with the Church to receive Teachers, not with Teachers to desert the faith of the Church.

My belief is, that among many instances of this sort of trial which might be produced, there is not one to be compared with that of Origen, in whom there were many things so excellent, so unique, so admirable, that antecedently any one would readily deem that implicit faith was to be placed all his assertions. For if the conversation and manner of life carry authority, great was his industry, great his modesty, his patience, his endurance; if his descent or his erudition, what more noble than his birth of a house rendered illustrious by martyrdom? Afterwards, when in the cause of Christ he had been deprived not only of his father, but also of all his property, he attained so high a standard in the midst of the straits of holy poverty, that he suffered several times, it is said, as a Confessor. Nor were these the only circumstances connected with him, all of which afterwards proved an occasion of trial. He had a genius so powerful, so profound, so acute, so elegant, that there was hardly any one whom he did not very far surpass. The splendour of his learning, and of his erudition generally, was such that there were few points of divine philosophy, hardly any of human which he did not thoroughly master. When Greek had yielded to his industry, he made himself a proficient in Hebrew. What shall I say of his eloquence, the style of which was so charming, so soft, so sweet, that honey rather than words seemed to flow from his mouth! What subjects were there, however difficult, which he did not render clear and perspicuous by the force of his reasoning? What undertakings, however hard to accomplish, which he did not make to appear most easy? But perhaps his assertions rested simply on ingeniously woven argumentation? On the contrary, no teacher ever used more proofs drawn from Scripture. Then I suppose he wrote little? No man more, so that, if I mistake not, his writings not only cannot all be read through, they cannot all be found; for that nothing might be wanting to his opportunities of obtaining knowledge, he had the additional advantage of a life greatly prolonged. But perhaps he was not particularly happy in his disciples? Who ever more so? From his school came forth doctors, priests, confessors, martyrs, without number. Then who can express how much he was admired by all, how great his renown, how wide his influence? Who was there whose religion was at all above the common standard that did not hasten to him from the ends of the earth? What Christian did not reverence him almost as a prophet; what philosopher as a master? How great was the veneration with which he was regarded, not only by private persons, but also by the Court, is declared by the histories which relate how he was sent for by the mother of the Emperor Alexander, moved by the heavenly wisdom with the love of which She, as he, was inflamed. To this also his letters bear witness, which, with the authority which he assumed as a Christian Teacher, he wrote to the Emperor Philip, the first Roman prince that was a Christian. As to his incredible learning, if any one is unwilling to receive the testimony of Christians at our hands, let him at least accept that of heathens at the hands of philosophers. For that impious Porphyry says that when he was little more than a boy, incited by his fame, he went to Alexandria, and there saw him, then an old man, but a man evidently of so great attainments, that he had reached the summit of universal knowledge.

Time would fail me to recount, even in a very small measure, the excellencies of this man, all of which, nevertheless, not only contributed to the glory of religion, but also increased the magnitude of the trial. For who in the world would lightly desert a man of so great genius, so great learning, so great influence, and would not rather adopt that saying, That he would rather be wrong with Origen, than be right with others.

What shall I say more? The result was that very many were led astray from the integrity of the faith, not by any human excellencies of this so great man, this so great doctor, this so great prophet, but, as the event showed, by the too perilous trial which he proved to be. Hence it came to pass, that this Origen, such and so great as he was, wantonly abusing the grace of God, rashly following the bent of his own genius, and placing overmuch confidence in himself, making light account of the ancient simplicity of the Christian religion, presuming that he knew more than all the world besides, despising the traditions of the Church and the determinations of the ancients, and interpreting certain passages of Scripture in a novel way, deserved for himself the warning given to the Church of God, as applicable in his case as in that of others, “If there arise a prophet in the midst of thee,” … “thou shalt not hearken to the words of that prophet,” … “because the Lord your God doth make trial of you, whether you love Him or not.” Truly, thus of a sudden to seduce the Church which was devoted to him, and hung upon him through admiration of his genius, his learning, his eloquence, his manner of life and influence, while she had no fear, no suspicion for herself, — thus, I say, to seduce the Church, slowly and little by little, from the old religion to a new profaneness, was not only a trial, but a great trial.

But some one will say, Origen’s books have been corrupted. I do not deny it; nay, I grant it readily. For that such is the case has been handed down both orally and in writing, not only by catholic Christians, but by heretics as well. But the point is, that though himself be not, yet books published under his name are, a great trial, which, abounding in many hurtful blasphemies, are both read and delighted in, not as being some one else’s, but as being believed to be his, so that, although there was no error in Origen’s original meaning, yet Origen’s authority appears to be an effectual cause in leading people to embrace error.

CHAPTER XVIII

Tertullian a great trial to the Church.

The case is the same with Tertullian. For as Origen holds by far the first place among the Greeks, so does Tertullian among the Latins. For who more learned than he, who more versed in knowledge whether divine or human ? With marvellous capacity of mind he comprehended all philosophy, and had a knowledge of all schools of philosophers, and of the founders and upholders of schools, and was acquainted with all their rules and observances, and with their various histories and studies. Was not his genius of such unrivalled strength and vehemence that there was scarcely any obstacle which he proposed to himself to overcome, that he did not penetrate by acuteness, or crush by weight? As to his style, who can sufficiently set forth its praise? It was knit together with so much cogency of argument that it compelled assent, even where it failed to persuade. Every word almost was a sentence; every sentence a victory. This know the Marcions, the Apelleses, the Praxeases, the Hermogeneses, the Jews, the Heathens, the Gnostics, and the rest, whose blasphemies he overthrew by the force of his many and ponderous volumes, as with so many thunderbolts. Yet this man also, notwithstanding all that I have mentioned, this Tertullian, I say, too little tenacious of catholic doctrine, that is, of the universal and ancient faith, more eloquent by far than faithful, changed his belief, and justified what the blessed Confessor, Hilary, writes of him, namely, that “by his subsequent error he detracted from the authority of his approved writings.” He also was a great trial in the Church. But of Tertullian I am unwilling to say more. This only I will add, that, contrary to the injunction of Moses, by asserting the novel furies of Montanus which arose in the Church, and those mad dreams of new doctrine dreamed by mad women, to be true prophecies, he deservedly made both himself and his writings obnoxious to the words, “If there arise a prophet in the midst of thee,”… “thou shall not hearken to the words of that prophet. ” For why ? “Because the Lord your God doth make trial of you, whether you love Him or not.”

CHAPTER XIX

What we ought to learn from these examples

It behooves us, then, to give heed to these instances from Church History, so many and so great, and others of the same description, and to understand distinctly, in accordance with the rule laid down Deuteronomy, that if at any time a Doctor in the Church have erred from the faith, Divine Providence permits it in order to make trial of us, whether or not we love God with all our heart and with all our mind.

CHAPTER XX

The notes of a true catholic.

This being the case, he is the true and genuine catholic who loves the truth of God, who loves the Church, who loves the Body of Christ, who esteems divine religion and the catholic Faith above every thing, above the authority, above the regard, above the genius, above the eloquence, above the philosophy, of every man whatsoever; who sets light by all of these, and continuing steadfast and established in the faith, resolves that he will believe that, and that only, which he is sure the catholic Church has held universally and from ancient time; but that whatsoever new and unheard-of doctrine he shall find to have been furtively introduced by some one or another, besides that of all, or contrary to that of all the saints, this, he will under, stand, does not pertain to religion, but is permitted as a trial, being instructed especially by the words of the blessed Apostle Paul, who writes thus in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, ” There must needs be heresies, that they who are approved may be made manifest among you:” as though he should say, This is the reason why the authors of Heresies are not forthwith rooted up by God, namely, that they who are approved may be made manifest that is, that it may be apparent of each individual, how tenacious and faithful and steadfast he is in his love of the catholic faith.

And in truth, as each novelty springs up incontinently is discerned the difference between the weight of the wheat and the lightness of the chaff. Then that which had no weight to keep it on the floor is without difficulty blown away. For some at once fly off entirely; others having been only shaken out, afraid of perishing, wounded, half alive, half dead, are ashamed to return. They have, in fact swallowed a quantity of poison — not enough to kill, yet more than can be got rid of; it neither causes death, nor suffers to live. O wretched condition! With what surging tempestuous cares are they tossed about ! One while, the error being set in motion, they are hurried whithersoever the wind drives them; another, returning upon themselves like refluent waves, they are dashed back: one while, with rash presumption, they give their approval to what seems uncertain; another, with irrational fear, they are frightened out of their wits at what is certain, in doubt whither to go, whither to return, what to seek, what to shun, what to keep, what to throw away.

This affliction, indeed, of a hesitating and miserably vacillating mind is, if they are wise, a medicine intended for them by God’s compassion. For therefore it is that outside the most secure harbour of the catholic Faith, they are tossed about, beaten, and almost killed, by divers tempestuous cogitations, in order that they may take in the sails of self-conceit, which, they had with ill advice unfurled to the blasts of novelty, and may betake themselves again to, and remain stationary within, the most secure harbour of their placid and good mother, and may begin by vomiting up those bitter and turbid floods of error which they had swallowed, that thenceforward they may be able to drink the streams of fresh and living water. Let them unlearn well what they had learnt not well, and let them receive so much of the entire doctrine of the Church as they can understand: what they cannot understand let them believe.

CHAPTER. XXI

Exposition of St. Paul’s words. — 1 Timothy 6:20

Such being the case, when I think over these things, and revolve them in my mind again and again, I cannot sufficiently wonder at the madness of certain men, at the impiety of their blinded understanding, at their lust of error, such that, not content with the rule of faith delivered once for all, and received from the times of old, they are every day seeking one novelty after another, and are constantly longing to add, change, take away, in religion, as though the doctrine, ” Let what has once for all been revealed suffice,” were not a heavenly but an earthly rule, — a rule which could not be complied with except by continual emendation, nay, rather by continual fault-finding; whereas the divine Oracles cry aloud, “Remove not the landmarks, which thy fathers have set,” and “Go not to law with a Judge,” and “Whoso breaketh through a fence a serpent shall bite him,” and that saying of the Apostle where with, as with a spiritual sword, all the wicked novelties of all heresies often have been, and will always have to be, decapitated, “O Timothy, keep the deposit, shunning profane novelties of words and oppositions of the knowledge falsely so called, which some professing have erred concerning the faith.”

After words such as these, is there any one of so hardened a front, such anvil-like impudence, such adamantine pertinacity, as not to succumb to so huge a mass, not to be crushed by so ponderous a weight, not to be shaken in pieces by such heavy blows, not to be annihilated by such dreadful thunderbolts of divine eloquence? “Shun profane novelties,” he says. He does not say shun “antiquity.” But he plainly points to what ought to follow by the rule of contrary. For if novelty is to be shunned, antiquity is to be held fast; if novelty is profane, antiquity is sacred. He adds, ” And oppositions of science falsely so called.” “Falsely called ” indeed, as applied to the doctrines of heretics, where ignorance is disguised under the name of knowledge, fog of sunshine, darkness of light. “Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.” Professing what? What but some (I know not what) new and unheard-of doctrine. For thou mayest hear some of these same doctors say, “Come, O silly wretches, who go by the name of catholic Christians, come and learn the true faith, which no one but ourselves is acquainted with, which same has lain hid these many ages, but has recently been revealed and made manifest. But learn it by stealth and in secret, for you will be delighted with it. Moreover, when you have learnt it, teach it furtively, that the world may not hear, that the Church may not know. For there are but few to whom it is granted to receive the secret of so great a mystery.” Are not these the words of that harlot who, in the proverbs of Solomon, calls to the passengers who go right on their ways, “Whoso is simple let him turn in hither.” And as for them that are void of understanding, she exhorts them saying: “Drink stolen waters, for they are sweet, and eat bread in secret for it is pleasant.” What next? “But he knoweth not that the sons of earth perish in her house.” Who are those “sons of earth “? Let the apostle explain: “Those who have erred concerning the faith.”

CHAPTER XXII

A more particular Exposition of 1 Timothy 6:20

But it is worth while to expound the whole of that passage of the apostle more fully, “O Timothy, keep the deposit, avoiding profane novelties of words.”

“O!” The exclamation implies fore-knowledge as well as charity. For he mourned in anticipation over the errors which he foresaw. Who is the Timothy of to-day, but either generally the Universal Church, or in particular, the whole body of The Prelacy, whom it behooves either themselves to possess or to communicate to others a complete knowledge of religion? What is “Keep the deposit “? ” Keep it,” because of thieves, because of adversaries, lest, while men sleep, they sow tares over that good wheat which the Son of Man had sown in his field. “Keep the deposit.” What is “The deposit”? That which has been entrusted to thee, not that which thou hast thyself devised: a matter not of wit, but of learning; not of private adoption, but of public tradition; a matter brought to thee, not put forth by thee, wherein thou art bound to be not an author but a keeper, not a teacher but a disciple, not a leader but a follower. “Keep the deposit.” Preserve the talent of catholic Faith inviolate, unadulterated. That which has been entrusted to thee, let it continue in thy possession, let it be handed on by thee. Thou hast received gold; give gold in turn. Do not substitute one thing for another. Do not for gold impudently substitute lead or brass. Give real gold, not counterfeit.

O Timothy! O Priest! O Expositor! O Doctor! if the divine gift hath qualified thee by wit, by skill, by learning, be thou a Bazaleel of the spiritual tabernacle, engrave the precious gems of divine doctrine, fit them in accurately, adorn them skilfully, add splendor, grace, beauty. Let that which formerly was believed, though imperfectly apprehended, as expounded by thee be clearly understood. Let posterity welcome, understood through thy exposition, what antiquity venerated without understanding. Yet teach still i the same truths which thou hast learnt, so that though thou speakest after a new fashion, what thou speakest may not be new.

CHAPTER XXIII

On Development in Religious Knowledge.

But some one will say. perhaps, Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ’s Church? Certainly; all possible progress. For what being is there, so envious of men, so full of hatred to God, who would seek to forbid it? Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith. For progress requires that the subject be enlarged n itself, alteration, that it be transformed into something else. The intelligence, then, the knowledge, the wisdom, as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole Church, ought, in the course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much and vigorous progress; but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning.

The growth of religion in the soul must be analogous to the growth of the body, which, though in process of years it is developed and attains its full size, yet remains still the same. There is a wide difference between the flower of youth and the maturity of age; yet they who were once young are still the same now that they have become old, insomuch that though the stature and outward form of the individual are changed, yet his nature is one and the same, his person is one and the same. An infant’s limbs are small, a young man’s large, yet the infant and the young man are the same. Men when full grown have the same number of joints that they had when children; and if there be any to which maturer age has given birth these were already present in embryo, so that nothing new is produced in them when old which was not already latent in them when children. This, then, is undoubtedly the true and legitimate rule of progress, this the established and most beautiful order of growth, that mature age ever develops in the man those parts and forms which the wisdom of the Creator had already framed beforehand in the infant. Whereas, if the human form were changed into some shape belonging to another kind, or at any rate, if the number of its limbs were increased or diminished, the result would be that the whole body would become either a wreck or a monster, or, at the least, would be impaired and enfeebled.

In like manner, it behooves Christian doctrine to follow the same laws of progress, so as to be consolidated by years, enlarged by time, refined by age, and yet, withal, to continue incorrupt and unadulterated, complete and perfect in all the measurement of its parts, and, so to speak, in all its proper members and senses, admitting no change, no waste of its distinctive property, no variation in its limits.

For example: Our forefathers in the old time sowed wheat in the Church’s field. It would be most unmeet and iniquitous if we, their descendants, instead of the genuine truth of corn, should reap the counterfeit error of tares. This rather should be the result, — there should be no discrepancy between the first and the last. From doctrine which was sown as wheat, we should reap, in the increase, doctrine of the same kind — wheat also; so that when in process of time any of the original seed is developed, and now flourishes under cultivation, no change may ensue in the character of the plant. There may supervene shape, form, variation in outward appearance, but the nature of each kind must remain the same. God forbid that those rose-beds of catholic interpretation should be converted into thorns and thistles. God forbid that in that spiritual paradise from plants of cinnamon and balsam darnel and wolfsbane should of a sudden shoot forth.

Therefore, whatever has been sown by the fidelity of the Fathers in this husbandry of God’s Church, the same ought to be cultivated and taken care of by the industry of their children, the same ought to flourish and ripen, the same ought to advance and go forward to perfection. For it is right that those ancient doctrines of heavenly philosophy should, as time goes on, be cared for, smoothed, polished; but not that they should be changed, not that they should be maimed, not that they should be mutilated. They may receive proof, illustration, definiteness; but they must retain withal their completeness, their integrity, their characteristic properties.

For if once this license of impious fraud be admitted, I dread to say in how great danger religion will be of being utterly destroyed and annihilated. For if any one part of catholic truth be given up, another, and another, and another will thenceforward be given up as a matter of course, and the several individual portions having been rejected, what will follow in the end but the rejection of the whole? On the other hand, if what is new begins to be mingled with what is old, foreign with domestic, profane with sacred, the custom will of necessity creep on universally, till at last the Church will have nothing left untampered with, nothing unadulterated, nothing sound, nothing pure; but where formerly there was a sanctuary of chaste and undefiled truth, thenceforward there will be a brothel of impious and base errors. May God’s mercy avert this wickedness from the minds of his servants; be it rather the frenzy of the ungodly.

But the Church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds, does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does not lose her own, does not appropriate what is another’s, but while dealing faithfully and judiciously with ancient doctrine, keeps this one object carefully in view, — if there be anything which antiquity has left shapeless and rudimentary, to fashion and polish it, if anything already reduced to shape and developed, to consolidate and strengthen it, if any already ratified and defined to keep and guard it. Finally, what other object have Councils ever aimed at in their decrees, than to provide that what was before believed in simplicity should in future be believed intelligently, that what was before preached coldly should in future be preached earnestly, that what was before practised negligently should thenceforward be practised with double solicitude ? This, I say, is what the catholic Church, roused by the novelties of heretics, has accomplished by the decrees of her Councils, — this, and nothing else, — she has thenceforward consigned to posterity in writing what she had received from those of olden times only by tradition, comprising a great amount of matter in a few words, and often, for the better understanding, designating an old article of the faith by the characteristic of a new name.

CHAPTER XXIV

Continuation of the Exposition of 1 Timothy 6:20

But let us return to the apostle. “O Timothy,” he says, “Guard the deposit,; shunning profane novelties of words. ” “Shun them as you would a viper, as you would a scorpion, as you would a basilisk, lest they smite you not only with their touch, but I even with their eyes and breath.” What is “to shun” ? Not even to eat with a person of this sort What is “shun”? “If anyone,” says St. John, “come to you and bring not this doctrine. What doctrine ? What but the catholic and universal doctrine, which has continued one and the same through the several successions of ages by the uncorrupt tradition of the truth and so will continue for ever — “Receive him not into your house, neither bid him Godspeed, for he that biddeth him Godspeed communicates with him in his evil deeds.”

“Profane novelties of words” What words are these? Such as have nothing sacred, nothing religious, words utterly” remote from the inmost sanctuary of the Church which is the temple of God. “Profane novelties of words, that is, of doctrines, subjects, opinions, such as are contrary to antiquity and the faith of the olden time. Which if they be received, it follows necessarily that the faith of the blessed fathers is violated either in whole, or at all events in great part; it follows necessarily that all the faithful of all ages, all the saints, the chaste, the continent, the virgins, all the clergy, Deacons and Priests, so many thousands of Confessors, so vast an army of martyrs, such multitudes of cities and of peoples, so many islands, provinces, kings, tribes, kingdoms, nations, in a word, almost the whole earth, incorporated in Christ the Head, through the catholic faith, have been ignorant for so long a tract of time, have been mistaken, have blasphemed, have not known what to believe, what to confess.

“Shun profane novelties of words,” which to receive and follow was never the part of catholic Christians; of heretics always was. In sooth, what heresy ever burst forth save under a definite name, at a definite place, at a definite time? Who ever originated a heresy that did not first dissever himself from the consentient agreement of the universality and antiquity of the catholic Church ? That this is so is demonstrated in the clearest way by examples. For who ever before that profane Pelagius attributed so much antecedent strength to free-will, as to deny the necessity of God’s grace to aid it towards good in every single act? Who ever before his monstrous disciple Coelestius denied that the, whole human race is involved in the guilt of Adam’s sin? Who ever before sacrilegious Arius dared to rend asunder the unity of the Trinity? Who before impious Sabellius was so audacious as to confound the Trinity of the Unity? Who before cruellest Novatian represented God as cruel in that He had rather the wicked should die than that he should be converted and live? Who before Simon Magus, who was smitten by the apostle’s rebuke, and from whom that ancient sink of every thing vile has flowed by a secret continuous succession even to Priscillian of our own time, — who, I say, before this Simon Magus, dared to say that God, the Creator, is the author of evil, that is, of our wickednesses, impieties, depravities, inasmuch as he asserts that He created with His own hands a human nature of such a description, that of its own motion, and by the impulse of its necessity-constrained will, it can do nothing else, can will nothing else, but sin, seeing that tossed to and fro, and set on fire by the furies of all sorts of vices, it is hurried away by unquenchable lust into the utmost extremes of baseness?

There are innumerable instances of this kind, which for brevity’s sake, pass over; by all of which, however, it is manifestly and clearly shown, that it is an established law, in the case of almost all heresies, that they evermore delight in profane novelties, scorn the decisions of antiquity, and, through oppositions of science falsely so called, make shipwreck of the faith. On the other hand, it is the sure characteristic of Catholics to keep that which has been committed to their trust by the holy Fathers, to condemn profane novelties, and, in the apostle’s words, once and again repeated, to anathematize every one who preaches any other doctrine than that which has been received.

CHAPTER XXV

Heretics appeal to Scripture that they may more easily succeed in deceiving.

Here, possibly, some one may ask, Do heretics also appeal to Scripture ? They do indeed, and with a vengeance; for you may see them scamper through every single book of Holy Scripture, — through the books of Moses, the books of Kings, the Psalms, the Epistles, the Gospels, the Prophets. Whether among their own people, or among strangers, in private or in public, in speaking or in writing, at convivial meetings, or in the streets, hardly ever do they bring forward anything of their own which they do not endeavour to shelter under words of Scripture. Read the works of Paul of Samosata, of Priscillian, of Eunomius, of Jovinian, and the rest of those pests, and you will see an infinite heap of instances, hardly a single page, which does not bristle with plausible quotations from the New Testament or the Old.

But the more secretly they conceal themselves under shelter of the Divine Law, so much the more are they to be feared and guarded against. For they know that the evil stench of their doctrine will hardly find acceptance with any one if it be exhaled pure and simple. They sprinkle it over, therefore, with the perfume of heavenly language, in order that one who would be ready to despise human error, may hesitate to condemn divine words. They do, in fact, what nurses do when they would prepare some bitter draught for children; they smear the edge of the cup all round with honey, that the unsuspecting child, having first tasted the sweet, may have no fear of the bitter. So too do these act, who disguise poisonous herbs and noxious juices under the names of medicines, so that no one almost, when he reads the label, suspects the poison.

It was for this reason that the Saviour cried, “Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” What is meant by “sheep’s closing”? What but the words which prophets and apostles with the guilelessness of sheep wove beforehand as fleeces, for that immaculate Lamb which taketh away the sin of the world ? What are the ravening wolves? What but the savage and rabid glosses of heretics, who continually infest the Church’s folds, and tear in pieces the flock of Christ wherever they are able ? But that they may with more successful guile steal upon the unsuspecting sheep, retaining the ferocity of the wolf, they put off his appearance, and wrap themselves, so to say, in the language of the Divine Law, as in a fleece, so that one, having felt the softness of wool, may have no dread of the wolf’s fangs. But what saith the Saviour? “By !their fruits ye shall know them;” that is, when they have begun not only to quote those divine words, but also to expound them, not as yet only to make a boast of them as on their side, but also to interpret them, then will that bitterness, that acerbity, that rage, be understood; then will the ill-savour of that novel poison be perceived, then will those profane novelties be disclosed, then may you see first the hedge broken through, then the landmarks of the Fathers removed, then the catholic faith assailed, then the doctrine of the Church torn in pieces.

Such were they whom the Apostle Paul rebukes in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians, when he says, “For of this sort are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ.” The apostles brought forward instances from Holy Scripture; these men did the same. The apostles cited the authority of the Psalms; these men did so likewise. The apostles brought forward passages from the prophets; these men still did the same. But when they began to interpret in different senses the passages which both had agreed in appealing to, then were discerned the guileless from the crafty, the genuine from the counterfeit, the straight from the crooked, then, in one word, the true apostles from the false apostles. “And no wonder,” he says, “for Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. It is no marvel then if his servants are transformed as the servants of righteousness.” Therefore, according to the authority of the Apostle Paul, as often as either false apostles or false teachers cite passages from the Divine Law, by means of which, misinterpreted, they seek to prop up their own errors, there is no doubt that they are following the cunning devices of their father, which assuredly he would never have devised, but that he knew that where he could fraudulently and by stealth introduce error, there is no easier way of effecting his impious purpose than by pretending the authority of Holy Scripture.

CHAPTER XXVI

Heretics, in quoting Scripture, follow the example of the devil.

But some one will say, What proof have we that the Devil is wont to appeal to Holy Scripture? Let him read the Gospels wherein it is written, “Then the Devil took Him (the Lord the Saviour) and set Him upon a pinnacle of the Temple, and said unto Him: If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down, for it is written, He shall give His angels charge concerning thee, that they may keep thee in all thy ways: In their hands they shall bear thee up, lest perchance thou dash thy foot against a stone.” What sort of treatment must men, insignificant wretches that they are, look for at the hands of him who assailed even the Lord of Glory with quotations from Scripture? “If thou be the Son of God,” saith be, “cast the, self down.” Wherefore? “For,” saith he, “it is written.” It behoves us to pay special attention to this passage and bear it in mind, that, warned by so important an instance of Evangelical authority, we may be assured beyond doubt, when we find people alleging passages from the Apostles or Prophets against the catholic Faith, that the Devil speaks through their mouths. For as then the Head spoke to the Head, so now also the members speak to the members, the members of the Devil to the members of Christ, misbelievers to believers, sacrilegious to religious, in one word, Heretics to Catholics.

But what do they say? “If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down;” that is, if thou wouldst be a son of God, and wouldst receive the inheritance of the Kingdom of Heaven, cast thyself down; that is, cast thyself down from the doctrine and tradition of that sublime Church, which is imagined to be nothing less than the very temple of God. And if one should ask one of the heretics who gives this advice, How do you prove? What ground have you, for saying, that I ought to cast away the universal and ancient faith of the catholic Church? he has the answer ready, “For it is written;” and forthwith he produces a thousand testimonies, a thousand examples, a thousand authorities from the Law, from the Psalms, from the apostles, from the Prophets, by means of which, interpreted on a new and wrong principle, the unhappy soul may be precipitated from the height of catholic truth to the lowest abyss of heresy. Then, with the accompanying promises, the heretics are wont marvellously to beguile the incautious. For they dare to teach and promise, that in their church, that is, in the conventicle of their communion, there is a certain great and special and altogether personal grace of God, so that whosoever pertain to their number, without any labour, without any effort, without any industry, even though they neither ask, nor seek, nor knock, have such a dispensation from God, that, borne up by angel hands, that is, preserved by the protection of angels, it is impossible they should ever dash their feet against a stone, that is, that they should ever be offended.

CHAPTER XXVII

What Rule is to be observed in the interpretation of Scripture.

But it will be said, If the words, the sentiments, the promises of Scripture, are appealed to by the Devil and his disciples, of whom some are false apostles, some false prophets and false teachers, and all without exception heretics, what are Catholics and the sons of Mother Church to do? How are they to distinguish truth from falsehood in the sacred Scriptures? They must be very careful to pursue that course which, in the beginning of this Commonitory, we said that holy and learned men had commended to us, that is to say, they must interpret the sacred Canon according to the traditions of the Universal Church and in keeping with the rules of catholic doctrine, in which catholic and Universal Church, moreover, they must follow universality, antiquity, consent. And if at any time a part opposes itself to the whole, novelty to antiquity, the dissent of one or a few who are in error to the consent of all or at all events of the great majority of Catholics, then they must prefer the soundness of the whole to the corruption of a part; in which same whole they must prefer the religion of antiquity to the profaneness of novelty; and in antiquity itself in like manner, to the temerity of one or of a very few they must prefer, first of all, the general decrees, if such there be, of a Universal Council, or if there be no such, then, what is next best, they must follow the consentient belief of many and great masters. Which rule having been faithfully, soberly, and scrupulously observed, we shall with little difficulty detect the noxious errors of heretics as they arise.

CHAPTER XXVIII

In what way, on collating the consentient opinions of the ancient masters, the novelties of heretics may be detected and condemned.

And here I perceive that, as a necessary sequel to the foregoing, I ought to show by examples in what way, by collating the consentient opinions of the ancient masters, the profane novelties of heretics may be detected and condemned. Yet in the investigation of this ancient consent of the holy Fathers we are to bestow our pains not on every minor question of the Divine Law, but only, at all events especially, where the Rule of Faith is concerned. Nor is this way of dealing with heresy to be resorted to always, or in every instance, but only in the case of those heresies which are new and recent, and that on their first arising, before they have had time to deprave the Rules of the Ancient Faith, and before they endeavour, while the poison spreads and diffuses itself, to corrupt the writings of the ancients. But heresies already widely diffused and of old standing are by no means to be thus dealt with, seeing that through lapse of time they have long had opportunity of corrupting the truth. And therefore, as to the more ancient schisms or heresies, we ought either to confute them, if need be, by the sole authority of the Scriptures, or at any rate, to shun them as having been already of old convicted and condemned by universal councils of the catholic Priesthood.

Therefore, as soon as the corruption of each mischievous error begins to break forth, and to defend itself by filching certain passages of Scripture, and expounding them fraudulently and deceitfully, forthwith, the opinions of the ancients in the interpretation of the Canon are to be collected, whereby the novelty, and consequently the profaneness, whatever it may be, that arises, may both without any doubt be exposed, and without any tergiversation be condemned. But the opinions of those Fathers only are to be used for comparison, who living and teaching, holily, wisely, and with constancy, in the catholic faith and communion, were counted worthy either to die in the faith of Christ, or to suffer death happily for Christ. Whom yet we are to believe on this condition, that that only is to be accounted indubitable, certain, established, which either all, or the more part, have supported and confirmed manifestly, frequently, persistently, in one and the same sense, forming, as it were, a consentient council of doctors, all receiving, holding, handing on the same doctrine. But whatsoever a teacher holds, other than all, or contrary to all, be he holy and learned, be he a bishop, be he a Confessor, be he a martyr, let that be regarded as a private fancy of his own, and be separated from the authority of common, public, general persuasion, lest, after the sacrilegious custom of heretics and schismatics, rejecting the ancient truth of the universal Creed, we follow, at the utmost peril of our eternal salvation, the newly devised error of one man.

Lest any one perchance should rashly think the holy and catholic consent of these blessed fathers to be despised, the Apostle says, in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, “God hath placed some in the Church, first Apostles,” of whom himself was one; “secondly Prophets,” such as Agabus, read in the Acts of the Apostles; of whom we “then doctors,” who are now called Homilists, Expositors, whom the same apostle sometimes calls also “Prophets,” because by them the mysteries of the Prophets are opened to the people. Whosoever, therefore, shall despise these, who had their appointment of God in His Church in their several times and places, when they are unanimous in Christ, in the interpretation of some one point of catholic doctrine, despises not man, but God, from whose unity in the truth, lest any one should vary, the same Apostle earnestly protests, “I beseech you, brethren, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” But if any one dissent from their unanimous decision, let him listen to the words of the same apostle,” “God is not the God of dissension but of peace;” that is, not of him who departs from the unity of consent, but of those who remain steadfast in the peace of consent: “as,” he continues, “I teach in all Churches of the saints,” that is, of Catholics, which churches are therefore churches of the saints, because they continue steadfast in the communion of the faith.

And lest any one, disregarding every one else, should arrogantly claim to be listened to himself alone, himself alone to be believed, the Apostle goes on to say, “Did the word of God proceed from you, or did it come to you only?” And, lest this should be thought lightly spoken, he continues, “If any man seem to be a prophet or a spiritual person, let him acknowledge that the things which I write unto you are the Lord’s commands.” As to which, unless a man be a prophet or a spiritual person, that is, a master in spiritual matters, let him be as observant as possible of impartiality and unity, so as neither to prefer his own opinions to those of every one besides, nor to recede from the belief of the whole body. Which injunction, whoso ignores, shall be himself ignored; that is, he who either does not learn what he does not know, or treats with contempt what he knows, shall be ignored, that is, shall be deemed unworthy to be ranked of God with those who are united to each other by faith, and equalled with each other by humility, than which I cannot imagine a more terrible evil. This it is however which, according to the Apostle’s threatening, we see to have befallen Julian the Pelagian, who either neglected to associate himself with the belief of his fellow Christians, or presumed to dissociate himself from it.

But it is now time to bring forward the exemplification which we promised, where and how the sentences of the holy Fathers have been collected together, so that in accordance with them, by the decree and authority of a council, the rule of the Church’s faith may be settled. Which that it may be done the more conveniently, let this present Commonitory end here, so that the remainder which is to follow may be begun from a fresh beginning.

[The Second Book of the Commonitory is lost. Nothing of it remains but the following conclusion.]

CHAPTER XXIX

Recapitulation.

This being the case, it is now time that we should recapitulate, at the close of this second Commonitory, what was said in that and in the preceding.

We said above, that it has always been the custom of Catholics, and still is, to prove the true faith in these two ways; first by the authority of the Divine Canon, and next by the tradition of the catholic Church. Not that the Canon alone does not of itself suffice for every question, but seeing that the more part, interpreting the divine words according to their own persuasion, take up various erroneous opinions, it is therefore necessary that the interpretation of divine Scripture should be ruled according to the one standard of the Church’s belief, especially in those articles on which the foundations of all catholic doctrine rest.

We said likewise, that in the Church itself regard must be had to the consentient voice of universality equally with that of antiquity, lest we either be torn from the integrity of unity and carried away to schism, or be precipitated from the religion of antiquity into heretical novelties. We said, further, that in this same ecclesiastical antiquity two points are very carefully and earnestly to be held in view by those who would keep clear of heresy: first, they should ascertain whether any decision has been given in ancient times as to the matter in question by the whole priesthood of the catholic Church, with the authority of a General Council: and, secondly, if some new question should arise on which no such decision has been given, they should then have recourse to the opinions of the holy Fathers, of those at least, who, each in his own time and place, remaining in the unity of communion and of the faith, were accepted as approved masters; and whatsoever these may be found to have held, with one mind and with one consent, this Ought to be accounted the true and catholic doctrine of the Church, without any doubt or scruple.

Which lest we should seem to allege presumptuously on our own warrant rather than on the authority of the Church, we appealed to the example of the holy council which some three years ago was held at Ephesus in Asia, in the consulship of Bassus and Antiochus, where, when question was raised as to the authoritative determining of rules of faith, lest, perchance, any profane novelty should creep in, as did the perversion of the truth at Ariminum, the whole body of priests there assembled, nearly two hundred in number, approved of this as the most catholic, the most trustworthy, and the best course — that is, to bring forth into the midst the sentiments of the holy Fathers, some of whom it was well known had been martyrs, some Confessors, but all had been, and continued to the end to be, catholic priests, in order that by their consentient determination the reverence due to ancient truth might be duly and solemnly confirmed, and the blasphemy of profane novelty condemned. Which having been done, that impious Nestorius was lawfully and deservedly adjudged to be opposed to catholic antiquity, and contrariwise blessed Cyril to be in agreement with it. And that nothing might be wanting to the credibility of the matter, we recorded the names and the number (though we had forgotten the order) of the Fathers, according to whose consentient and unanimous judgment, both the sacred preliminaries of judicial procedure were expounded, and the rule of divine truth established. Whom, that we may strengthen our memory, it will be no superfluous labour to mention again here also!

CHAPTER XXX

The Council of Ephesus.

These then are the men whose writings, whether as judges or as witnesses, were recited in the Council: St. Peter, bishop of Alexandria, a most excellent Doctor and most blessed martyr, Saint Athanasius, bishop of the same city, a most faithful Teacher, and most eminent Confessor, Saint Theophilus, also bishop of fie same city, a man illustrious for his faith, his life, his knowledge, whose successor, the revered Cyril, now adorns the Alexandrian Church. And lest perchance the doctrine ratified by the Council should be thought peculiar to one city and province, there were added also those lights of Cappadocia, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, bishop and Confessor, St. Basil of Caesarea in Cappadocia, bishop and Confessor, and the other St. Gregory, St. Gregory of Nyssa, for his faith, his conversation, his integrity, and his wisdom, most worthy to be the brother of Basil. And lest Greece or the East should seem to stand alone, to prove that the Western and Latin world also have always held the same belief, there were read in the Council certain Epistles of St. Felix, martyr, and St. Julius, both bishops of Rome. And that not only the Head, but the other parts, of the world also might bear witness to the judgment of the council, there was added from the South the most blessed Cyprian, bishop of Carthage and martyr, and from the North St. Ambrose, bishop of Milan.

These all then, to the sacred number of the decalogue, were produced at Ephesus as doctors, councillors, witnesses, judges. And that blessed council holding their doctrine, following their counsel, believing their witness, submitting to their judgment without haste, without foregone conclusion, without partiality, gave their determination concerning the Rules of Faith. A much greater number of the ancients might have been adduced; but it was needless, because neither was it fit that the time should be occupied by a multitude of witnesses, nor does any one suppose that those ten were really of a different mind from the rest of their colleagues.

CHAPTER XXXI

The constancy of the Ephesian Fathers in driving away novelty and maintaining antiquity.

After the preceding we added also the sentence of blessed Cyril, which is contained in these same Ecclesiastical Proceedings. For when the Epistle of Capreolus, bishop of Carthage, had been read, wherein he earnestly entreats that novelty may be driven away and antiquity maintained, Cyril made and carried the proposal, which it may not be out of place to insert here: For says he, at the close of the proceedings, “Let the Epistle of Capreolus also, the reverend and very religious bishop of Carthage, which has been read, be inserted in the acts. His mind is obvious, for he entreats that the doctrines of the ancient faith be confirmed, such as are novel, wantonly devised, and impiously promulgated, reprobated and condemned.” All the bishops cried out, “These are the words of all; this we all say, this we all desire.” What mean “the words of all,” what mean “the desires of all,” but that what has been handed down from antiquity should be retained, what has been newly devised, rejected with disdain?

Next we expressed our admiration of the humility and sanctity of that Council, such that, though the number of priests was so great, almost the more part of them metropolitans, so erudite, so learned, that almost all were capable of taking part in doctrinal discussions, whom the very circumstance of their being assembled for the purpose, might seem to embolden to make some determination on their own authority, yet they innovated nothing, presumed nothing, arrogated to themselves absolutely nothing, but used all possible care to hand down nothing to posterity but what they had themselves received from their Fathers. And not only did they dispose satisfactorily of the matter presently in hand, but they also set an example to those who should come after them, how they also should adhere to the determinations of sacred antiquity, and condemn the devices of profane novelty.

We inveighed also against the wicked presumption of Nestorius in boasting that he was the first and the only one who understood holy Scripture, and that all those teachers were ignorant, who before him had expounded the sacred oracles, forsooth, the whole body of priests, the whole body of Confessors and martyrs, of whom some had published commentaries upon the Law of God, others had agreed with them in their comments, or had acquiesced in them. In a word, he confidently asserted that the whole Church was even now m error, and always had been in error, in that, as it seemed to him, it had followed, and was following, ignorant and misguided teachers.

CHAPTER XXXII

The zeal of Celestine and Sixtus, bishops of Rome, in opposing novelty.

The foregoing would be enough and very much more than enough, to crush and annihilate every profane novelty. But yet that nothing might be wanting to such completeness of proof, we added, at the close, the twofold authority of the Apostolic See, first, that of holy Pope Sixtus, the venerable prelate who now adorns the Roman Church; and secondly that of his predecessor, Pope Celestine of blessed memory, which same we think it necessary to insert here also.

Holy Pope Sixtus then says in an Epistle which he wrote on Nestorius’s matter to the bishop of Antioch, “Therefore, because, as the Apostle says, the faith is one, — evidently the faith which has obtained hitherto, — let us believe the things that are to be said, and say the things that are to be held.” What are the things that are to be believed and to be said? He goes on: “Let no license be allowed to novelty, because it is not fit that any addition should be made to antiquity. Let not the clear faith and belief of our forefathers be fouled by any muddy admixture.” A truly apostolic sentiment! He enhances the belief of the Fathers by the epithet of clearness; profane novelties he calls muddy.

Holy Pope Celestine also expresses himself in like manner and to the same effect. For in the Epistle which he wrote to the priests of Gaul, charging them with connivance with error, in that by their silence they failed in their duty to the ancient faith, and allowed profane novelties to spring up, he says: “We are deservedly to blame if we encourage error by silence. Therefore rebuke these people. Restrain their liberty of preaching.” But here some one may doubt who they are whose liberty to preach as they, list he forbids, — the preachers of antiquity or the devisers of novelty. Let himself tell us; let himself resolve the reader’s doubt. For he goes on: “If the case be so (that is, if the case be so as certain persons complain to me touching your cities and provinces, that by your hurtful dissimulation you cause them to consent to certain novelties), if the case be so, let novelty cease to assail antiquity.” This, then, was the sentence of blessed Celestine, not that antiquity should cease to subvert novelty, but that novelty should cease to assail antiquity.

CHAPTER XXXIII

The children of the catholic Church ought to adhere to the Faith of their fathers and die for it.

Whoever then gainsays these Apostolic and catholic determinations, first of all necessarily insults the memory of holy Celestine, who decreed that novelty should cease to assail antiquity; and in the next place sets at naught the decision of holy Sixtus, whose sentence was, “Let no license be allowed to novelty, since it is not fit that any addition be made to antiquity;” moreover, he condemns the determination of blessed Cyril, who extolled with high praise the zeal of the venerable Capreolus, in that he would fain have the ancient doctrines of the faith confirmed, and novel inventions condemned; yet more, he tramples upon the Council of Ephesus, that is, on the decisions of the holy bishops of almost the whole East, who decreed, under divine guidance, that nothing ought to be believed by posterity save what the sacred antiquity of the holy Fathers, consentient in Christ, had held, who with one voice, and with loud acclaim, testified that these were the words of all, this was the wish of all, this was the sentence of all, that as almost all heretics before Nestorius, despising antiquity and upholding novelty, had been condemned, so Nestorius, the author of novelty and the assailant of antiquity, should be condemned also. Whose consentient determination, inspired by the gift of sacred and celestial grace, whoever disapproves must needs hold the profaneness of Nestorius to have been condemned unjustly; finally, he despises as vile and worthless the whole Church of Christ, and its doctors, apostles, and prophets, and especially the blessed Apostle Paul: he despises the Church, in that she hath never failed in loyalty to the duty of cherishing and preserving the faith once for all delivered to her; he despises St. Paul, who wrote, “O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to thee, shunning profane novelties of words;” and again, “if any man preach unto you other than ye have received, let him be accursed.” But if neither apostolic injunctions nor ecclesiastical decrees may be violated, by which, in accordance with the sacred consent of universality and antiquity, all heretics always, and, last of all, Pelagius, Coelestius, and Nestorius have been rightly and deservedly condemned, then assuredly it is incumbent on all Catholics who are anxious to approve themselves genuine sons of Mother Church, to adhere henceforward to the holy faith of the holy Fathers, to be wedded to it, to die in it; but as to the profane novelties of profane men — to detest them, abhor them, oppose them, give them no quarter.

These matters, handled more at large in the two preceding Commonitories, I have now put together more briefly by way of recapitulation, in order that my memory, to aid which I composed them, may, on the one hand, be refreshed by frequent reference, and, on the other, may avoid being wearied by prolixity.

Dura Europos in Syria was founded by Alexander’s lieutenant, Seleucus Nicator. The town was closely linked with Palmyra, serving as an important forward line of defense against Persians. It was captured and destroyed by the Sassanids in 256 AD shortly before the fall of the Syrian Metropolis itself.

The site did not attract significant attention until 1921, when mural paintings were discovered, notably synagogue frescoes dating from 235 AD which were in a remarkable state of preservation.

From Web syllabus for  History of Western Architecture at the University of Pittsburgh

From the Judaica Collection at Sterling Memorial Library

Home Worship of the Early Christians

In the 1920′s archaeologists working in present-day Syria uncovered in the desert sands a Roman garrison town, Dura Europos; once located at the edge of the Persian empire of the Sassanids.

In 256 A.D. the Persians laid siege to the town. The desperate inhabitants attempted defend their town by piling mounds of dirt against the walls. In doing so, houses next to the west wall were buried and thus preserved for the archaeologist who uncovered them, almost 1700 years later.

The archaeologist discovered that three of the covered homes had been renovated for use as religious buildings. One had become a Mithraeum, dedicated to the worship of the god Mithras. Another had undergone structural modifications to become a Jewish synagogue. The third home had been converted to a Christian church. This Christian church is especially important as it is the earliest complete church extant.

Inside the house church at Dura Europos

Fresco detail: The healing of the Paralytic. Click to enlarge…

An examination of the remains yields much about the liturgy of the early Christian church.

A typical Roman upper class house was centered around a columned courtyard with an open room caled the atrium. In the center of the courtyard was a pool or impluvium. At the opposite end from the entrance was a raised area tablinum containing a table and used by the family as a reception area and for ceremonial functions.

In the Dura Europos home converted to a church, scholars speculate that the congregation gathered around the pool, which was used for baptism. In the tablinum sat the bishop, who presided over the Eucharist, celebrated at the table. This arrangement provides a logical basis for the liturgical arrangement of later basilica churches.

Fragments of parchment scrolls with Hebrew texts have also been unearthed at Dura Europos; they resisted meaningful translation until J.L. Teicher pointed out that they were Christian Eucharistic prayers, so closely connected with the prayers in the Didache that he was able to fill lacunae in the light of the Didache text.

In 1933, among fragments of text recovered from the town dump outside the Palmyrene Gate, a fragmentary text (Dura Parchment 24) was unearthed from an unknown Greek harmony of the gospel accounts. It was comparable to Tatian’s Diatessaron, but independent of it.

Since the Lord warns us, saying, “Ye are the salt of the earth,” and since He bids us to be simple to harmlessness, and yet with our simplicity to be prudent, then what else, beloved brethren, befits us than to use foresight and watching with an anxious heart, both to perceive and to beware of the wiles of the crafty foe; that we, who have put on Christ the wisdom of God the Father, may not seem to be wanting in wisdom in the matter of providing for our salvation?

For it is not persecution alone that is to be feared; nor those things which advance by open attack to overwhelm and cast down the servants of God. Caution is more easy where danger is manifest, and the mind is prepared beforehand for the contest when the adversary avows himself. The enemy is more to be feared and to be guarded against, when he creeps on us secretly; when, deceiving by the appearance of peace, he steals forward by hidden approaches.

More…

The author identifies himself as James — presumably the kinsman of Jesus — and claims to have written shortly after the death of Herod in 4 B.C. This dating is unlikely, however, as the work shows the influence of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. An early boundary is set by the use of Matthew and Luke; a late boundary is set by Origen’s referring to the work, and by its inclusion in the Bodmer papyri. Within this range, a dating in the middle of the second century is accepted by most scholars.

The majority of the work is devoted to the life of Mary, the mother of Christ. She is portrayed not only as a virgin but as an example of purity her entire life. Its popularity is attested to by the numerous surviving ancient translations, the earliest dating back to the third century. It confirms the antiquity of such traditions as Joseph’s being a widower with several children, who is appointed Mary’s guardian; the birth of Jesus in a cave; and the martyrdom of John the Baptist’s father Zechariah during the slaughter of the infants.

Over 140 manuscripts containing the Greek text of the Infancy Gospel of James have been recovered. We have the book in the original Greek and in several oriental versions, the oldest of which is the Syriac. But, oddly enough, there is no Latin version. The matter is found in an expanded and altered form in the ‘Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew’, but we have yet to find an old Latin translation of the present text. Such a thing seems to have existed, since the work is condemned in the Gelasian Decree.

Though the Protevangelium has never been considered Scripture, it is well worth reading to see what early Christians accepted as normal. Within living memory of the last of the apostles, the Protevangelium was being copied, translated and distributed among the churches, who found it both profitable and familiar.

Read the text…

They do not live in cities of their own; they do not use a peculiar form of speech; they do not follow an eccentric manner of life.  This doctrine of theirs has not been discovered by the ingenuity or deep thought of inquisitive men, nor do they put forward a merely human teaching, as some people do.  Yet, although they live in Greek and barbarian cities alike, as each man’s lot has been cast, and follow the customs of the country in clothing and food and other matters of daily living, at the same time they give proof of the remarkable and admittedly extraordinary constitution of their own commonwealth.

They live in their own countries, but only as aliens.  They have a share in everything as citizens, and endure everything as foreigners.  Every foreign land is their fatherland, and yet for them every fatherland is a foreign land.  They marry, like everyone else, and they beget children, but they do not cast out their offspring.  They share their food with each other, but not their marriage bed.  It is true that they are “in the flesh,” but they do not live “according to the flesh.”

They busy themselves on earth, but their citizenship is in heaven.  They obey the established laws, but in their own lives they go far beyond what the laws require.  They love all men, and by all men are persecuted.  They are unknown, and still they are condemned; they are put to death, and yet they are brought to life.  They are poor, and yet they make many rich; they are completely destitute, and yet they enjoy complete abundance.  They are dishonored, and in their very dishonor are glorified; they are defamed, and are vindicated.  They are reviled, and yet they bless; when they are affronted, they still pay respect.

When they do good, they are punished as evildoers; undergoing punishment, they rejoice because they are brought to life.  They are treated by the Jews as foreigners and enemies, and are hunted down by the Greeks; and all the time those who hate them find it impossible to justify their enmity.

The Epistle to Diognetus, ch. 5
2nd century

Christian Baptism

I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers’ wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: “Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, saith the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if ye refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.”

And for this rite we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the layer the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed.

Its imitation by demons

And the devils, indeed, having heard this washing published by the prophet, instigated those who enter their temples, and are about to approach them with libations and burnt-offerings, also to sprinkle themselves; and they cause them also to wash themselves entirely, as they depart from the sacrifice, before they enter into the shrines in which their images are set. And the command, too, given by the priests to those who enter and worship in the temples, that they take off their shoes, the devils, learning what happened to the above-mentioned prophet Moses, have given in imitation of these things. For at that juncture, when Moses was ordered to go down into Egypt and lead out the people of the Israelites who were there, and while he was tending the flocks of his maternal uncle in the land of Arabia, our Christ conversed with him under the appearance of fire from a bush, and said, “Put off thy shoes, and draw near and hear.” And he, when he had put off his shoes and drawn near, heard that he was to go down into Egypt and lead out the people of the Israelites there; and he received mighty power from Christ, who spoke to him in the appearance of fire, and went down and led out the people, having done great and marvellous things; which, if you desire to know, you will learn them accurately from his writings.

Baptism and the consecration of the Eucharist

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized illuminated person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to genoito so be it. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

The Eucharist

And this food is called among us Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

Weekly worship of the Christians

And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.