binds

Concerning him who is baptised. When one has been chosen or who is ready for baptism they shall examine their life; if they lived in the fear of God before they are baptised, if they honoured the widow, or if they visited the sick, or if they did all good, and if there is witness in their favour from those who bring them; and if they have done thus they shall hear the Gospel from the time that they were set apart, and they shall lay hand upon them and every day instruct them. And when the day draws near on which they shall be baptised, the bishop binds every one of them by oath, that he may know if they are pure. And if one was found who was not pure, they shall put him aside by himself; for he has not hearkened to the word of instruction with faith; because it is not proper to baptise (lit. do to) an utter alien. And they shall instruct those who shall be baptised that they should wash and be exorcised on the fifth day of the week (sabbath); and if there was a menstruous woman among them, she shall be put aside, that she may be baptised on another day. And those who desire to be baptised shall fast on Friday, and the bishop shall assemble all those who shall be baptised on Saturday into one place, and shall command all of them (to make) prayer and prostration; and when he has laid his hand upon them, let him exorcise the unclean spirit that he may flee away from them and not enter into them again. And when he has finished his exorcising, he shall breathe upon them, and they shall read to them the Scriptures, and exhort them. And they who shall be baptised shall not bring with them any ornament of gold, nor ring nor gem of any kind; but every one of them shall give thanks, and it is fitting for them whom it beseems to bring their Oblations also at the time.

Account these worthy to be esteemed your rulers and your kings, and bring them tribute as to kings; for by you they and their families ought to be maintained. As Samuel made constitutions for the people concerning a king, in the first book of Kings, and Moses did so concerning priests in Leviticus, so do we also make constitutions for you concerning bishops. For if there the multitude distributed the inferior services in proportion to so great a king, ought not therefore the bishop much more now to receive of you those things which are determined by God for the sustenance of himself and of the rest of the clergy belonging to him? But if we may add somewhat further, let the bishop receive more than the other received of old: for he only managed the affairs of the soldiery, being entrusted with war and peace for the preservation of men's bodies; but the other is entrusted with the exercise of the priestly office in relation to God, in order to preserve both body and soul from dangers. By how much, therefore, the soul is more valuable than the body, so much the priestly office is beyond the kingly. For it binds and looses those that are worthy of punishment or of remission. Wherefore you ought to love the bishop as your father, and fear him as your king, and honour him as your lord, bringing to him your fruits and the works of your hands, for a blessing upon you, giving to him your first-fruits, and your tithes, and your oblations, and your gifts, as to the priest of God; the first-fruits of your wheat, and wine, and oil, and autumnal fruits, and wool, and all things which the Lord God gives you. And your offering shall be accepted as a savour of a sweet smell to the Lord your God; and the Lord will bless the works of your hands, and will multiply the good things of the land. For a blessing is upon the head of him that gives.

In the next place, as if he had devoted himself solely to the manifestation of his hatred and dislike of the Jewish and Christian doctrine, he says: “The more modest of Jewish and Christian writers give all these things an allegorical meaning;” and, “Because they are ashamed of these things, they take refuge in allegory.” Now one might say to him, that if we must admit fables and fictions, whether written with a concealed meaning or with any other object, to be shameful narratives when taken in their literal acceptation, of what histories can this be said more truly than of the Grecian? In these histories, gods who are sons castrate the gods who are their fathers, and gods who are parents devour their own children, and a goddess-mother gives to the “father of gods and men” a stone to swallow instead of his own son, and a father has intercourse with his daughter, and a wife binds her own husband, having as her allies in the work the brother of the fettered god and his own daughter! But why should I enumerate these absurd stories of the Greeks regarding their gods, which are most shameful in themselves, even though invested with an allegorical meaning? [Take the instance] where Chrysippus of Soli, who is considered to be an ornament of the Stoic sect, on account of his numerous and learned treatises, explains a picture at Samos, in which Juno was represented as committing unspeakable abominations with Jupiter. This reverend philosopher says in his treatises, that matter receives the spermatic words of the god, and retains them within herself, in order to ornament the universe. For in the picture at Samos Juno represents matter, and Jupiter God. Now it is on account of these, and of countless other similar fables, that we would not even in word call the God of all things Jupiter, or the sun Apollo, or the moon Diana. But we offer to the Creator a worship which is pure, and speak with religious respect of His noble works of creation, not contaminating even in word the things of God; approving of the language of Plato in the Philebus, who would not admit that pleasure was a goddess, “so great is my reverence, Protarchus,” he says, “for the very names of the gods.” We verily entertain such reverence for the name of God, and for His noble works of creation, that we would not, even under pretext of an allegorical meaning, admit any fable which might do injury to the young.