Tertullian

But the Jews are sure to say that ever since this precept was given through Moses, the observance has been binding. But it is clear according to the text that the precept was not eternal or spiritual but temporary, which would one day cease. In short, so true is it that it is not in the exemption from work of the sabbath—that is, of the seventh day—that the celebration of this solemnity is to consist, that Joshua the son of Nun, at the time that he was reducing the city Jericho by war, stated that he had received from God a precept to order the people that priests should carry the ark of the testament of God seven days, making the circuit of the city; and thus, when the seventh day’s circuit had been performed, the walls of the city would spontaneously fall. This was done. When the space of the seventh day was finished, just as was predicted, down fell the walls of the city. [By this] it is manifestly shown that in the number of the seven days there intervened a Sabbath day. For seven days, whenever they may have commenced, must necessarily include within them a Sabbath day; on which day not only must the priests have worked, but the city must have been made a prey by the edge of the sword by all the people of Israel.

Learning literature is allowable for believers, rather than teaching; for the principle of learning and of teaching is different. If a believer teaches literature, while he is teaching doubtless he commends, while he delivers he affirms, while he recalls he bears testimony to, the praises of idols interspersed therein. He seals the gods themselves with this name [of gods]; whereas the Law, as we have said, prohibits “the names of gods to be pronounced,” and this name [of God] to be conferred on vanity. Hence the devil gets men’s early faith built up from the beginnings of their erudition. Inquire whether he who teaches about idols commits idolatry. But when a believer learns these things, if he is already capable of understanding what idolatry is, he neither receives nor allows them; much more if he is not yet capable. Or, when he begins to understand, it behooves him first to understand what he has previously learned, that is, touching God and the faith. Therefore he will reject those things and will not receive them, and will be as safe as one who from one who knows it not knowingly accepts poison but does not drink it.

For they, withal, who instituted them are assigned, under condemnation, to the penalty of death — those angels, to wit, who rushed from heaven on the daughters of men; so that this ignominy also attaches to woman. For when to an age much more ignorant (than ours) they had disclosed certain well-concealed material substances, and several not well-revealed scientific arts — if it is true that they had laid bare the operations of metallurgy, and had divulged the natural properties of herbs, and had promulgated the powers of enchantments, and had traced out every curious art, even to the interpretation of the stars — they conferred properly and as it were peculiarly upon women that instrumental mean of womanly ostentation, the radiances of jewels wherewith necklaces are variegated, and the circlets of gold wherewith the arms are compressed, and the medicaments of orchil with which wools are colored, and that black powder itself wherewith the eyelids and eyelashes are made prominent. What is the quality of these things may be declared meantime, even at this point, from the quality and condition of their teachers: in that sinners could never have either shown or supplied anything conducive to integrity, unlawful lovers anything conducive to chastity, renegade spirits anything conducive to the fear of God. If (these things) are to be called teachings, ill masters must of necessity have taught ill; if as wages of lust, there is nothing base of which the wages are honourable. But why was it of so much importance to show these things as well as to confer them? Was it that women, without material causes of splendour, and without ingenious contrivances of grace, could not please men, who, while still unadorned, and uncouth and — so to say — crude and rude, had moved (the mind of) angels? Or was it that the lovers would appear sordid and — through gratuitous use — contumelious, if they had conferred no (compensating) gift on the women who had been enticed into connubial connection with them? But these questions admit of no calculation. Women who possessed angels (as husbands) could desire nothing more; they had, forsooth, made a grand match! Assuredly they who, of course, did sometimes think whence they had fallen, and, after the heated impulses of their lusts, looked up toward heaven, thus requited that very excellence of women, natural beauty, as (having proved) a cause of evil, in order that their good fortune might profit them nothing; but that, being turned from simplicity and sincerity, they, together with (the angels) themselves, might become offensive to God. Sure they were that all ostentation, and ambition, and love of pleasing by carnal means, was displeasing to God. And these are the angels whom we are destined to judge: these are the angels whom in baptism we renounce: these, of course, are the reasons why they have deserved to be judged by man. What business, then, have their things with their judges? What commerce have they who are to condemn with them who are to be condemned? The same, I take it, as Christ has with Belial. With what consistency do we mount that (future) judgment-seat to pronounce sentence against those whose gifts we (now) seek after? For you too, (women as you are,) have the self-same angelic nature promised as your reward, the self-same sex as men: the self-same advancement to the dignity of judging, does (the Lord) promise you. Unless, then, we begin even here to pre-judge, by pre-condemning their things, which we are hereafter to condemn in themselves, they will rather judge and condemn us.

I am aware that the Scripture of Enoch, which has assigned this order (of action) to angels, is not received by some, because it is not admitted into the Jewish canon either. I suppose they did not think that, having been published before the deluge, it could have safely survived that world-wide calamity, the abolisher of all things. If that is the reason (for rejecting it), let them recall to their memory that Noah, the survivor of the deluge, was the great-grandson of Enoch himself; and he, of course, had heard and remembered, from domestic renown and hereditary tradition, concerning his own great-grandfather's "grace in the sight of God," and concerning all his preachings; since Enoch had given no other charge to Methuselah than that he should hand on the knowledge of them to his posterity. Noah therefore, no doubt, might have succeeded in the trusteeship of (his) preaching; or, had the case been otherwise, he would not have been silent alike concerning the disposition (of things) made by God, his Preserver, and concerning the particular glory of his own house. If (Noah) had not had this (conservative power) by so short a route, there would (still) be this (consideration) to warrant our assertion of (the genuineness of) this Scripture: he could equally have renewed it, under the Spirit's inspiration, after it had been destroyed by the violence of the deluge, as, after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonian storming of it, every document of the Jewish literature is generally agreed to have been restored through Ezra. But since Enoch in the same Scripture has preached likewise concerning the Lord, nothing at all must be rejected by us which pertains to us; and we read that "every Scripture suitable for edification is divinely inspired." By the Jews it may now seem to have been rejected for that (very) reason, just like all the other (portions) nearly which tell of Christ. Nor, of course, is this fact wonderful, that they did not receive some Scriptures which spoke of Him whom even in person, speaking in their presence, they were not to receive. To these considerations is added the fact that Enoch possesses a testimony in the Apostle Jude.

After the death of Joshua the son of Nave [Nun] they forsook the God of their fathers and served idols, Baalim and Ashtaroth; and the Lord in anger delivered them up to the hands of plunderers, and they continued to be plundered by them and to be sold to their adversaries, and [they] could not at all stand before their enemies. Wherever they went forth, his hand was upon them for evil, and they were greatly distressed. And after this God sets judges, the same as our censors, over them. But not even these did they continue steadfastly to obey. So soon as one of the judges died, they proceeded to transgress more than their fathers had done by going after the gods of others and serving and worshiping them. Therefore the Lord was angry. “Since, indeed,” he says, “this nation has transgressed my covenant which I established with their fathers and has not hearkened to my voice, I will not remove from them any of the nations which Joshua left at his death.” And thus, throughout almost all the annals of the judges and of the kings who succeeded them, while the strength of the surrounding nations was preserved, he meted wrath out to Israel by war and captivity and a foreign yoke, as often as they turned aside from him, especially to idolatry.

One [Elijah] whose “heart” was habitually found “lifted up” rather than fattened up, who in forty days and as many nights maintained a fast above the power of human nature while spiritual faith supplied strength (to his body), both saw with his eyes God’s glory, and heard with his ears God’s voice and understood with his heart God’s law, while he taught him even then (by experience) that humankind lives not on bread alone but on every word of God; in that the people, though fatter than he, could not constantly contemplate even Moses, fed as he had been on God, or his leanness, sated as it had been with God’s glory! Deservedly, therefore, even while in the flesh, did the Lord show himself to him, the colleague of his own fasts, no less than to Elijah. For Elijah had, by this fact primarily, that he had imprecated a famine, already sufficiently devoted himself to fasts: “The Lord lives,” he said, “before whom I am standing in his sight, if there shall be dew in these years and rain shower.” Subsequently, fleeing from threatening Jezebel, after one single meal of food and drink, which he had found on being awakened by an angel, he too, in a space of forty days and nights, his belly empty, his mouth dry, arrived at Mount Horeb; where, when he had made a cave his inn, with how familiar a meeting with God was he received! “What are you doing here, Elijah?” Much more friendly was this voice than, “Adam, where are you?” For the latter voice was uttering a threat to a fed man, the former soothing a fasting one. Such is the prerogative of circumscribed food, that it makes God tent fellow with a man—peer, in truth, with peer! For if the eternal God will not hunger, as he testifies through Isaiah, this will be the time for a person to be made equal with God, when he lives without food.

We indeed, who know for certain that Christ always spoke in the prophets, as the Spirit of the Creator (for so says the prophet, “The person of our Spirit, Christ the Lord,” who from the beginning was both heard and seen as the Father’s vicegerent in the name of God). We are well aware that his words, when upbraiding Israel, were the same as those that it was foretold that he should denounce against him: “You have forsaken the Lord and have provoked the holy One of Israel to anger.” If, however, you would rather refer to God the whole imputation of Jewish ignorance from the first, instead of to Christ, through an unwillingness on their part to allow that even in ancient times the Creator’s word and Spirit—that is to say, his Christ—was despised and not acknowledged by them, you will even in this subterfuge be defeated. For when you do not deny that the Creator’s Son and Spirit and Substance is also his Christ, you must allow that those who have not acknowledged the Father have failed likewise to acknowledge the Son through the identity of their natural substance; for if in Its fullness It has baffled human understanding, much more has a portion of It, especially when partaking of the fullness. Now, when these things are carefully considered, it becomes evident how the Jews rejected Christ and killed him; not because they regarded him as a strange Christ but because they did not acknowledge him, as though he were their own. For how could they have understood the strange One, concerning whom nothing had ever been announced, when they failed to understand him about whom there had been a perpetual course of prophecy? That admits of being understood or being not understood, which, by possessing a substantial basis for prophecy, will also have a subject matter for either knowledge or error; while that which lacks such matter admits not the issue of wisdom. So that it was not as if he belonged to another god that they conceived an aversion for Christ and persecuted him, but simply as a man whom they regarded as a wonder-working juggler and an enemy in his doctrines. They brought him therefore to trial as a mere man and one of themselves too—that is, a Jew (only a renegade and a destroyer of Judaism)—and punished him according to their law. If he had been a stranger, indeed, they would not have sat in judgment over him. So far are they from appearing to have understood him to be a strange Christ, that they did not even judge him to be a stranger to their own human nature.