John Chrysostom : "And if any man obeyeth not our word by this Epistle." He has not said, He that disobeys, disobeys me, but "note that man." This is no slight chastisement. "Have no company with him." Then again he says, "that he may be ashamed." And he does not permit them to proceed farther. For as he had said, "if any does not work neither let him eat" fearing lest they should perish by hunger, he has added, "But in doing good, be not ye weary." Thus having said, "Withdraw yourselves, and have no company with him," then fearing lest this very thing might cut him off from the brotherhood-for he who gives himself up to despair will quickly be lost if he is not admitted to freedom of conversation-he has added. — Homily on 2 Thessalonians 5 Shepherd of Hermas : Wherefore if any one persists in such deeds, and repents not, withdraw from him, and cease to live with him, otherwise you are a sharer in his sin. Therefore has the injunction been laid on you, that you should remain by yourselves, both man and woman, for in such persons repentance can take place. But I do not," said he, "give opportunity for the doing of these deeds, but that he who has sinned may sin no more. But with regard to his previous transgressions, there is One who is able to provide a cure; for it is He, indeed, who has power over all." — Shepherd of Hermas, Commandment 4 Tertullian : Why, do you yourself, when introducing into the church, for the purpose of melting the brotherhood by his prayers, the repentant adulterer, lead into the midst and prostrate him, all in haircloth and ashes, a compound of disgrace and horror, before the widows, before the elders, suing for the tears of all, licking the footprints of all, clasping the knees of all? And do you, good shepherd and blessed father that you are, to bring about the (desired) end of the man, grace your harangue with all the allurements of mercy in your power, and under the parable of the "ewe" go in quest of your goats? do you, for fear lest your "ewe" again take a leap out from the flock-as if that were no more lawful for the future which was not even once lawful-fill all the rest likewise full of apprehension at the very moment of granting indulgence? And would the apostle so carelessly have granted indulgence to the atrocious licentiousness of fornication burdened with incest, as not at least to have exacted from the criminal even this legally established garb of repentance which you ought to have learned from him? as to have uttered no commination on the past? no allocution touching the future? Nay, more; he goes further, and beseeches that they "would confirm toward him affection," as if he were making satisfaction to him, not as if he were granting an indulgence! And yet I hear (him speak of) "affection," not "communion; "as (he writes) withal to the Thessalonians "But if any obey not our word through the epistle, him mark; and associate not with him, that he may feel awed; not regarding (him) as an enemy, but rebuking as a brother." Accordingly, he could have said that to a fornicator, too, "affection" only was conceded, not "communion "as well; to an incestuous man, however, not even "affection; "whom he would, to be sure, have bidden to be banished from their midst -much more, of course, from their mind. — On Modesty