Caput XIII. - Julii Cassiani Haeretici Verbis Respondet; Item Loco Quem ex Evangelio Apocrypho Idem Adduxerat.
Talibus argumentis utitur quoque Julius Cassianus,16 qui fuit princeps sectae Docetarum. In opere certe De continentia, vel De castitate, his verbis dicit: “Nec dicat aliquis, quod quoniam talia habemus membra, ut aliter figurata sit femina, aliter vero masculus: illa quidem ad suscipiendum, hic vero ad seminandum, concessam esse a Deo consuetudinem. Si enim a Deo, ad quem tendimus, esset haec constitutio, non beatos dixisset esse eunuchos; neque propheta dixisset, eos “non esse arborem infrugiferam; (Isa_56:3) transferens ab arbore ad hominem, qui sua sponte et ex instituto se castrat tali cogitatione.” Et pro impia opinione adhuc decertans, subjungit: “Quomodo autem non jure quis reprehenderit Servatorem, si nos transformavit, et ab errore liberavit, et a conjunctione membrorum, et additamentorum, et pudendorum?” in hoc eadem decernens cum Tatiano: hic autem prodiit ex schola Valentini. Propterea dicit Cassianus: “Cum interrogaret Salome, quando cognoscentur, ea, de quibus interrogabat, ait Dominus: Quando pudoris indumentum conculcaveritis, et quando duo facta fuerint unum, et masculum cum femina, nec masculum nec femineum.” Primum quidem, in nobis traditis quatuor Evangeliis non habemus hoc dictum, sed in eo, quod est secundum Aegyptios. Deinde mihi videtur ignorare, iram quidem, masculam appetitionem; feminam vero, significare cupiditatem: quorum operationem poenitentia et pudor consequuntur. Cum quis ergo neque irae neque cupiditati obsequens, quae quidem et consuetudine et mala educatione auctae, obumbrant et contegunt rationem, sed quae ex iis proficiscitur exuens caliginem, et pudore affectus ex poenitentia, spiritum et animam unierit in obedientia Logi seu rationis; tunc, ut ait Paulus, “non inest in nobis nec masculus, nec femina.” Recedens enim anima ab ea figura, qua discernitur masculus et femina, traducitur ad unionem, cum ea nutrum sit. Existimat autem hic vir praeclarus plus, quam par sit, Platonice, animam, cum sit ab initio divina, cupiditate effeminatam, huc venire ad generationem et interitum.
399
Caput XIV. - 2Co_11:3, et Eph_4:24, Exponit.
Jam vero vel invitum cogit Paulam generationem ex deceptione deducere, cum dicit: “Vereor autem, ne sicut serpens Evam decepit, corrupti sint sensus vestri a simplicitate, quae est in Christo.” (2Co_11:3) Sed certum est, Dominum quoque “venisse” ad ea, “quae aberraverant.” (Mat_18:11, Mat_18:12) Aberraverunt autem, non ab alto repetita origine in eam, quae hic est, generationem (est enim generatio creatura Omnipotentis, qui nunquam ex melioribus ad deteriora deduxerit animam); sed ad eos, qui sensibus seu cogitationibus aberraverant, ad nos, inquam, venit Servator: qui quidem ex nostra in praeceptis inobedientia corrupti sunt, dum nimis avide voluptatem persequeremur; cum utique protoplastus noster tempus praevenisset, et ante debitum tempus matrimonii gratiam appetiisset et aberrasset: quoniam “quicunque aspicit mulierem ad concupiscendum eam, jam moechatus est eam” (Mat_5:28) ut qui voluntatis tempus non exspectaverit. Is ipse ergo erat Dominus, qui tunc quoque damnabat cupiditatem, quae praevenit matrimonium. Cum ergo dicit Apostolus: “Induite novum hominem, qui secundum Deum creatur,” (Eph_4:24) nobis dicit, qui ab Omnipotentis voluntate efficti sumus, sicut sumus efficti. “Veterem” autem dixit, non rescipiens ad generationem et regenerationem, sed ad vitam inobedientiae et obedientiae. “Pelliceas” autem “tunicas” (Gen_3:21) existimat Cassianus esse corpora: in quo postea et eum, et qui idem cum eo sentiunt, aberrasse ostendemus, cum de ortu hominis, iis consequenter, quae prius dicenda sunt, aggrediemur expositionem. “Quoniam, inquit, qui a terrenis reguntur, et generant, et generantur: Nostra autem conversatio est in coelo, ex quo etiam Salvatorem exspectamus.” (Phi_3:20) Recte ergo nos haec quoque dicta esse scimus, quoniam ut hospites et advenae peregrinantes debemus vitam instituere; qui uxorem habent, ut non habentes; qui possident, ut non possidentes; qui liberos procreant, ut mortales gignentes, ut relicturi possessiones, ut etiam sine uxore victuri, si opus sit; non cum immodico actione, et animo excelso.
Caput XV. - 1Co_7:1; Luk_14:26; Isa_56:2, Isa_56:3, Explicat.
Et rursus cum dicit: “Bonum est homini uxorem non tangere, sed propter fornicationes unusquisque suam uxorem habeat;” (1Co_7:1, 1Co_7:2) id veluti exponens, rursus dicit: “Ne vos tentet Satanas.” (1Co_7:5) Non enim iis, qui continenter utuntur matrimonio propter solam liberorum procreationem, dicit, “propter intemperantiam;” sed iis, qui finem liberorum procreationis cupiunt transilire: ne, cum nimium annuerit noster adversarius, excitet appetitionem ad alienas voluptates. Fortasse autem quoniam iis, qui juste vivunt, resistit propter aemulationem, et adversus eos contendit, volens eos ad suos ordines traducere, per laboriosam continentiam eis vult praebere occasionem. Merito ergo dicit: “Melius est matrimonio jungi quam uri,” (1Co_7:9) ut “vir reddat debitum uxori, et uxor viro, et ne frustrentur invicem” (1Co_7:3, 1Co_7:5) hoc divino ad generationem dato auxilio. “Qui autem, inquiunt, non oderit patrem, vel matrem, vel uxorem, vel filios, non potest meus esse discipulus.” (Luk_14:26) Non jubet odisse proprium genus: “Honora” enim, inquit, “patrem et matrem, ut tibi bene sit:” (Exo_20:12) sed ne abducaris, inquit, per appetitiones a ratione alienas, sed neque civilibus moribus conformis fias. Domus enim constat ex genere, civitates autem ex domibus; quemadmodum Paulus quoque eos, qui occupantur in matrimonio, “mundo dixit placere.” (1Co_7:33) Rursus dicit Dominus: “Qui uxorem duxit, ne expellat; et qui non duxit, ne ducat;” (1Co_7:10, 1Co_7:11) qui ex proposito castitatis professus est uxorem non ducere maneat caelebs. Utrisque ergo idem Dominus per prophetam Isaiam convenientes dat promissiones sic dicens: “Ne dicat eunuchus: Sum lignum aridum;” haec enim dicit Dominus eunuchis: “Si custodieritis sabbata mea, et feceritis quaecunque praecipio, dabo vobis locum meliorem filiis et filiabus.” (Isa_56:3, Isa_56:4, Isa_56:5) Non sola enim justificat castitas, sed nec sabbatum eunuchi, nisi fecerit mandata. Infert autem iis, qui uxorem duxerunt, et dicit: “Electi mei non laborabunt in vanum, neque procreabunt filios in exsecrationem, quia semen est benedictum a Domino.” (Isa_65:23) Ei enim, qui secundum Logon filios procreavit et educavit, et erudivit in Domino, sicut etiam ei, qui genuit per veram catechesim et institutionem, merces quaedam est proposita, sicut etiam electo semini. Alii autem “exsecrationem” accipiunt esse ipsam liberorum procreationem, et non intelligunt adversus illos ipsos ea dicere Scripturam. Qui enim sunt revera electi Domini, non dogmata decernunt, nec filios progignunt, qui sunt ad exsecrationem, et haereses. Eunuchus ergo, non qui per vim excisas habet partes, sed nec qui caelebs est, dictus est, sed qui non gignit veritatem. Lignum hic prius erat aridum; si autem Logo obedierit, et sabbata custodieri, per abstinentiam a peccatis, et fecerit mandata erit honorabilior iis, qui absque recta vitae institutione solo sermone erudiuntur. “Filioli, modicum 400 adhuc sum vobiscum,” (Joh_13:33) inquit Magister. Quare Paulus quoque scribens ad Galatas, dicit: “Filioli mei, quos iterum parturio, donec formetur in vobis Christus.” (Gal_4:19) Rursus ad Corinthios scribens: “Si enim decies mille paedagogos,” inquit, “habeatis in Christo, sed non multos patres. In Christo enim per Evangelium ego vos genui.” (1Co_4:15) Propterea “non ingrediatur eunuchus in Ecclesiam Dei,” (Deu_23:1) qui est sterilis, et non fert fructum, nec vitae institutione, nec sermone. Sed “qui se” quidem “castrarunt” ab omni peccato “propter regnum coelorum,” (Mat_19:12) ii sunt beati, qui a mundo jejunant.
Caput XVI. - Jer_20:14; Job_14:3; Psa_50:5; 1Co_9:27, Exponit.
“Exsecranda” autem “dies in qua natus sum, et ut non sit optanda,” (Jer_20:14) inquit Jeremias: non absolute exsecrandam dicens generationem, sed populi peccata aegre ferens et inobedientiam. Subjungit itaque: “Cur enim natus sum ut viderem labores et dolores, et in perpetuo probro fuerunt dies mei?” (Jer_20:18) Quin etiam omnes, qui praedicabant veritatem, propter eorum, qui audiebant, inobedientiam, quaerebantur ad poenam, et veniebant in periculum. “Cur enim non fuit uterus matris meae sepulcrum, ne viderem affiictionem Jacob et laborem generis Israel?” (4 Esdras 5:35) ait Esdras propheta. “Nullus est a sorde mundus,” ait Job, “nee si sit quidem una dies vita ejus.” (Job_14:4,Job_14:5) Dicant ergo nobis, ubi fornicatus est infans natus? vel quomodo sub Adae cecidit exsecrationem, qui nihil est operatus? Restat ergo eis, ut videtur, consequenter, ut dicant malam esse generationem, non solum corporis, sed etiam animae, per quam exsistit corpus. Et quando dixit David: “In peccatis conceptus sum, et in iniquitatibus concepit me mater mea:” (Psa_50:7) dicit prophetice quidem matrem Evam; sed Eva quidem fuit “mater viventium;” et si is “in peccatis fuit conceptus,” at non ipse in peccato, neque vero ipse peccatum. Utrum vero quicunque etiam a peccato ad fidem convertitur, a peccandi consuetudine tanquam a “matre” converti dicatur ad “vitam,” feret mihi testimonium unus ex duodecim prophetis, qui dixit: “Si dedero primogenita pro impietate fructum ventris mei, pro peccatis animae meae.” (Mic_6:7) Non accusat eum, qui dixit: “Crescite et multiplicamini:” (Gen_1:28) sed primos post generationem motus, quorum tempore Deum non cognoscimus, dicit “impietates.” Si quis autem ea ratione dicit malam generationem, idem eam dicat bonam, quatenus in ipso veritatem cognoscimus. “Abluamini juste, et ne peccetis. Ignorationem enim Dei quidam habent,”17 videlicet qui peccant. “Quoniam nobis est colluctatio non adversus carnem et sanguinem, sed adversus spiritalia.” (Eph_6:12) Potentes autem sunt ad tentandum “principes tenebrarum hujus mundi,” et ideo datur venia. Et ideo Paulus quoque: “Corpus meum,” inquit, “castigo, et in servitutem redigo; quoniam qui certat, omnia continet,” hoc est, in omnibus continet, non ab omnibus abstinens, sed continenter utens iis, quae utenda judicavit, “illi quidem ut corruptibilem coronam accipiant; nos autem ut incorruptibilem,” (1Co_9:27, 1Co_9:25) in lucta vincentes, non autem sine pulvere coronam accipientes. Jam nonnulli quoque praeferunt viduam virgini, ut quae, quam experta est, voluptatem magno animo contempserit.
Caput XVII. - Qui Nuptias et Generationem Malas Asserunt, Ii et Dei Creationem et Ipsam Evangelii Dispensationem Vituperant.
Sin autem malum est generatio, in malo blasphemi dicant fuisse Dominum qui fuit particeps generationis, in malo Virginem quae genuit. Hei mihi! quot et quanta mala! Dei voluntatem maledictis incessunt, et mysterium creationis, dum invehuntur in generationem. Et hinc “Docesin” fingit Cassianus; hinc etiam Marcioni, et Valentino quoque est corpus animale; quoniam homo, inquiunt, operam dans veneri, “assimilatus est jumentis.” (Psa_48:13, 21) Atqui profecto, cum libidine vere insaniens, aliena inire voluerit, tunc revera, qui talis est, efferatur: “Equi in feminas furentes facti sunt, unusquisque hinniebat ad uxorem proximi sui.” (Jer_5:8) Quod si dicat serpentem, a brutis animantibus accepta consilii sui ratione, Adamo persuasisse ut cum Eva coire consentiret, tanquam alioqui, ut quidam existimant, protoplasti hac natura usuri non fuissent: rursus vituperatur creatio, ut quae rationis expertium animantium natura homines fecerit imbecilliores, quorum exempla consecuti sunt, qui a Deo primi formati fuere. Sin autem natura quidem eos sicut bruta deduxit ad filiorum procreationem; moti autem sunt citius quam oportuit, fraude inducti, cum adhuc essent juvenes; justum quidem est Dei judicium in eos qui non exspectarunt ejus voluntatem: sancta est autem generatio, per quam mundus consistit, per quam essentiae, per quam naturae, per quam angeli, per quam potestates, per quam 401 animae, per quam praecepta, per quam lex, per quam Evangelium, per quam Dei cognitio. “Et omnis caro fenum, et omnis gloria ejus quasi flos feni; et fenum quidem exsiccatur, flos autem decidit, sed verbum Domini manet,” (Isa_40:6, Isa_40:7, Isa_40:8) quod unxit artimam et uniit spiritui. Quomodo autem, quae est in Ecclesia nostra,18 oeconomia ad finem perduci potuisset absque corpore, cum etiam ipse, qui est caput Ecclesiae, in carne quidem informis et specie carens vitam transiit, ut doceret nos respicere ad naturam divinae causae informem et incorpoream? “Arbor enim vitae,” inquit propheta, “est in bono desiderio,” (Pro_13:12) docens bona et munda desideria, quae sunt in Domino vivente. Jam vero volunt viri cum uxore in matrimonio consuetudinem, quae dicta est “cognitio,” esse peccatum: eam quippe indicari ex esu “ligni boni et mali,” (Gen_3:5) per significationem hujus vocabuli “cognovit,” (Gen_4:1) quae mandati transgressionem notat. Si autem hoc ita est, veritatis quoque cognitio, est esus ligni vitae. Potest ergo honestum ac moderatum matrimonium illius quoque ligni esse particeps. Nobis autem prius dictum est, quod licet bene et male uti matrimonio; et hoc est lignum “cognitionis,” si non transgrediamur leges matrimonii. Quid vero? annon Servator noster, sicut animam, ita etiam corpus curavit ab affectionibus? Neque vero si esset caro inimica animae, inimicam per sanitatis restitutionem adversus ipsam muniisset. “Hoc autem dico, fratres, quod caro et sanguis regnum Dei non possunt possidere, neque corruptio possidet incorruptionem.” (1Co_15:50) Peccatun enim, cum sit “corruptio,” non potest habere societatem cum incorruptione,” quae est justitia. “Adeo stulti,” inquit, “estis? cum spiritu coeperitis, nunc carne consummamini.” (Gal_3:3)
Caput XVIII. - Duas Extremas Opiniones Esse Vitandas: Primam Illorum Qui Creatoris Odio a Nuptiis Abstinent; Alteram Illorum Qui Hinc Occasionem Arripiunt Nefariis Libidinibus Indulgendi.
Justitiam ergo et salutis harmoniam, quae est veneranda firmaque, alii quidem, ut ostendimus, nimium intenderunt, blaspheme ac maledice cum quavis impietate suscipientes continentiam; cum pie liceret castitatem, quae secundum sanam regulam instituitur, eligere; gratias quidem agendo propter datam ipsis gratiam, non habendo autem odio creaturam, neque eos aspernando, qui juncti sunt matrimonio; est enim creatus mundus, creata est etiam castitas; ambo autem agant gratias in iis, in quibus sunt collocati, si modo ea quoque norunt, in quibus sunt collocati. Alii autem effrenati se petulanter et insolenter gesserunt, revera “effecti equi in feminas insanientes, et ad proximorum suorum uxores hinnientes;” (Jer_5:8) ut qui et ipsi contineri non possint, et proximis suis persuadeant ut dent operam voluptati; infeliciter illas audientes Scripturas: “Quae tibi obtigit, partem pone nobiscum, crumenam autem unam possideamus communem, et unum fiat nobis marsupium.” (Pro_1:14) Propter eos idem propheta dicit, nobis consulens: “Ne ambulaveris in via cum ipsis, declinia pedem tuum a semitis eorum. Non enim injuste tenduntur retia pennatis. Ipsi enim, cum sint sanguinum participes, thesauros malorum sibi recondunt;” (Pro_1:15, Pro_1:16, Pro_1:17) hoc est, sibi affectantes immunditiam, et proximos similia docentes, bellatores, percussores caudis suis, (Rev_9:10) ait propheta, quas quidem Graeci κέρκους appellant. Fuerint autem ii, quos significat prophetia, libidinosi intemperantes, qui sunt caudis suis pugnaces, tenebrarum “iraeque filii,” (Eph_2:3) caede polluti, manus sibi afferentes, et homicidae propinquorum. “Expurgate ergo vetus fermentum, ut sitis novo conspersio,” (1Co_5:7) nobis exclamat Apostolus. Et rursus, propter quosdam ejusmodi homines indignans, praecipit, “Ne conversari quidem, si quis frater nominetur vel fornicator, vel avarus, vel idololatra, vel maledicus, vel ebriosus, vel raptor; cum eo, qui est talis, ne una quidem comedere. Ego enim per legem legi mortuus sum,” inquit; “ut Deo vivam, cum Christo sum crucifixus; vivo autem non amplius ego,” ut vivebam per cupiditates; “vivit autem in me Christus,” caste et beate per obedientiam praeceptorum. Quare tune quidem in carne vivebam carnaliter: “quod autem nunc vivo in carne, in fide vivo Filii Dei.” (Gal_2:19, Gal_2:20) - In viam gentium ne abieritis, et ne ingrediamini in urbem Samaritanorum,” (Mat_10:5) a contraria vitae institutione nos dehortans dicit Dominus; quoniam “Iniquorum virorum mala est conversatio; et hae sunt viae omnium, qui ea, quae sunt iniqua, efficiunt.” (Pro_1:18, Pro_1:19) - “ Vae homini illi,” inquit Dominus; “bonum esset ei, si non natus esset, quam ut unum ex electis meis scandalizaret. (Mat_26:24) Melius esset, ut ei mola circumponeretur, et in mari demergeretur, quam ut unum ex meis perverteret. (Mat_18:6 seqq.) Nomen enim Dei blasphematur propter ipsos.” (Rom_2:24) Unde praeclare Apostolus: “Scripsi,” inquit, “vobis in epistola, non conversari cum fornicatoribus,” (1Co_5:11) 402 usque ad illud: “Corpus autem non fornicationi, sed Domino, et Dominus corpori.” (1Co_6:13) Et quod matrimonium non dicat fornicationem, ostendit eo, quod subjungit: “An nescitis, quod qui adhaeret meretrici, unum est corpus?” (1Co_6:16) An meretricem quis dicet virginem, priusquam nubat? “Et ne fraudetis,” inquit, “vos invicem, nisi ex consensu ad tempus:” (1Co_7:5) per dictionem, “fraudetis,” ostendens matrimonii debitum esse liberorum procreationem: quod quidem in iis, quae praecedunt, ostendit, dicens: “Mulieri vir debitum reddat; similiter autem mulier quoque viro;” (1Co_7:3) post quam exsolutionem, in domo custodienda, et in ea quae est in Christo fide, adjutrix est. Et adhuc apertius, dicens: “Iis, qui sunt juncti matrimonio, praecipio, inquit, non ego, sed Dominus, uxorem a viro non separari; sin autem separata fuerit, maneat innupta, vel viro reconcilietur; et virum uxorem non dimittere. Reliquis autem dico ego, non Dominus: Si quis frater,” (1Co_7:10, 1Co_7:11, 1Co_7:12) usque ad illud: “Nunc autem sancta est.” (1Co_7:14) Quid autem ad haec dicunt, qui in legem invehuntur, et in matrimonium, quasi sit solum a lege concessum, non autem etiam in Novo Testamento? Quid ad has leges latas possunt dicere, qui sationem abhorrent et generationem? cum “episcopum” quoque, “qui domui recte praesit,” (1Ti_3:2, 1Ti_3:4; Tit_1:6) Ecclesiae ducem constituat; domum autem Dominicam “unius mulieris” constituat conjugium.19 “Omnia” ergo dicit esse “munda mundis; pollutis autem et infidelibus nihil est mundum, sed polluta est eorum et mens, et conscientia.” (Tit_1:15) De ea autem voluptate, quae est praeter regulam: “Ne erretis,” inquit; “nec fornicatores, nec idololatrae, nec adulteri, nec molles, nec masculorum concubitores, neque avari, neque fures, neque ebriosi, neque maledici, nec raptores, regnum Dei possidebunt; et nos quidem abluti sumus,” (1Co_6:9, 1Co_6:10, 1Co_6:11) qui in his eramus; qui autem in hanc tingunt intemperantiam, ex temperantia in fornicationem baptizant, voluptatibus et affectibus esse indulgendum decernentes, incontinentes ex moderatis fieri docentes, et in spe sua membrorum suorum impudentiae affixi; ut a regno Dei abdicentur, non autem ut inscribantur, qui ad eos ventitant, efficientes; sub falso nominatae cognitionis titulo, eam, quae ad exteriores ducit tenebras, viam ingredientes. “Quod reliquum est, fratres, quaecunque vera, quaecunque honesta, quaecunque justa, quaecunque casta, quaecunque amabilia, quaecunque bonae famae; si qua virtus, et si qua laus, ea considerate; quae et didicistis; quae etiam accepistis et audiistis et vidistis in me, ea facite; et Deus pacis erit vobiscum.” (Phi_4:8, Phi_4:9) Et Petrus similia dicit in Epistola: “Ut fides vestra et spes sit in Deum, cum animas vestras castas effeceritis in obedientia veritatis;” (1Pe_1:21, 1Pe_1:22) quasi filii obedientiae, non configurati prioribus desideriis, quae fuerunt in ignorantia; sed secundum eum, qui vocavit vos, sanctum, et ipsi sancti sitis in omni conversatione. Quoniam scriptum est: “Sancti eritis, quoniam ego sanctus sum.” (1Pe_1:14, 1Pe_1:15, 1Pe_1:16) Verumtamen quae adversus eos, qui cognitionem falso nomine simulant, necessario suscepta est a nobis disputatio; nos longius, quam par sit, abduxit, et orationem effecit prolixiorem. Unde tertius quoque liber Stromateus eorum, quae sunt de vera philosophia, commentariorum, hunc finem habeat.
Elucidations.
I.
(Chap. I.)
In his third book, Clement exposes the Basilidians and others who perverted the rule of our Lord, which permissively, but not as of obligation, called some to the self-regimen of a single life, on condition of their possessing the singular gift requisite to the same. True continence, he argues, implies the command of the tongue, and all manner of concupiscence, such as greed of wealth, or luxury in using it. If, by a divine faculty and gift of grace, it enables us to practise temperance, very well; but more is necessary. As to marriage, he states what seems to him to be the truth. We honour celibate chastity, and esteem them blest to whom this is God’s gift. We 403 also admire a single marriage, and the dignity which pertains to one marriage only; admitting, nevertheless, that we ought to compassionate others, and to bear one another’s burdens, lest any one, when he thinks he stands, should himself also fall. The apostle enjoins, with respect to a second marriage, “If thou art tempted by concupiscence, resort to a lawful wedlock.”
Our author then proceeds to a castigation of Carpocrates, and his son Epiphanes, an Alexandrian on his father’s side, who, though he lived but seventeen years, his mother being a Cephallenian, received divine honours at Sama, where a magnificent temple, with altars and shrines, was erected to him; the Cephallenians celebrating his apotheosis, by a new-moon festival, with sacrifices, libations and hymns, and convivialities. This youth acquired, from his father, a knowledge of Plato’s philosophy and of the circle of the sciences. He was the author of the jargon about monads,20 of which see Irenaeus; and from him comes the heresy of those subsequently known as Carpocratians. He left a book, De Justitia, in which he contends for what he represents as Plato’s idea of a community of women in sexual relations. Justly does our author reckon him a destroyer alike of law and Gospel, unworthy even of being classed with decent heretics; and he attributes to his followers all those abominations which had been charged upon the Christians. This illustrates the terrible necessity, which then existed, of drawing a flaming line of demarcation between the Church, and the wolves in sheeps’ clothing, who thus dishonoured the name of Christ, by associating such works of the devil with the adoption of a nominal discipleship. It should be mentioned that Mosheim questions the story of Epiphanes.(See his Hist. of the First Three Centuries, vol. i. p. 448.)
II.
(Chap. II.)
The early disappearance of the Christian agapae may probably be attributed to the terrible abuse of the word here referred to, by the licentious Carpocratians. The genuine agapae were of apostolic origin (2Pe_2:13; Jud_1:12), but were often abused by hypocrites, even under the apostolic eye (1Co_9:21 ). In the Gallican Church, a survival or relic of these feasts of charity is seen in the pain béni; and, in the Greek churches, in the άντίδωρον or eulogiae distributed to non-communicants at the close of the Eucharist, from the loaf out of which the bread of oblation is supposed to have been cut.
III.
(Chap. III.)
Next, he treats of the Marcionites, who rejected marriage on the ground that the material creation is in itself evil. Promising elsewhere to deal with this general false principle, he refutes Marcion, and with him the Greeks who have condemned the generative law of nature, specifying Heraclitus, Empedocles, the Sibyl, Homer, and others; but he defends Plato against Marcion, who represents him as teaching the depravity of matter. He proceeds to what the dramatists have exhibited of human misery. He shows the error of those who represent the Pythagoreans as on that account denying themselves the intimacies of conjugal society; for he says they practised this restraint, only after having given themselves a family. He explains the prohibition of the bean, by Pythagoras, on the very ground, that it occasioned sterility in women according to Theophrastus. Clement expounds the true meaning of Christ’s words, perverted by those who abstained from marriage not in honour of encraty, but as an insane impeachment of the divine wisdom in the material creation.
404
IV.
(Chap. IV.)
He refutes the Carpocratians, also, in their slanders against the deacon Nicolas, showing that the Nicolaitans had abused his name and words. Likewise, concerning Matthias, he exposes a similar abuse. He castigates one who seduced a maiden into impurity by an absurd perversion of Scripture, and thoroughly exposes this blasphemous abuse of the apostolic text. He subjoins another refutation of one of those heretics, and allows that some might adopt the opinion of his dupes, if, as the Valentinians would profess, only spiritual communion were concerned.
Seeing, however, that these heretics, and the followers of Prodicus, who wrongfully call themselves gnostics, claimed a practical indulgence in all manner of disgusting profligacies, he convicts them by arguments derived from right reason and from the Scriptures, and by human laws as well. Further, he exposes the folly of those who pretended that the less honourable parts of man are not the work of the Creator, and overwhelms their presumption by abundant argument, exploding, at the same time, their corruptions of the sacred text of the Scriptures.
V.
(Chap. V.)
To relieve himself of a more particular struggle with each individual heresy, he proceeds to reduce them under two heads: (1) Those who teach a reckless mode of life (ἀδιαφορως ζῆν), and (2) those who impiously affect continence. To the first, he opposes the plain propriety and duty of a decorous way of living continently; showing, that as it cannot be denied that there are certain abominable and filthy lusts, which, as such, must be shunned, therefore there is no such thing as living “indifferently” with respect to them. He who lives to the flesh, moreover, is condemned; nor can the likeness and image of God be regained, or eternal life be ensured, save by a strict observance of divine precepts. Further, our author shows that true Christian liberty consists, not, as they vociferate, in self-indulgence, but, on the contrary, is founded in an entire freedom from perturbations of mind and passion, and from all filthy lusts.
VI.
(Chap. VI.)
As to the second class of heretics, he reproves the contemners of God’s ordinance, who boast of a false continence, and scorn holy matrimony and the creation of a family. He contends with them by the authority of St. John, and first answers objections of theirs, based on certain apocryphal sayings of Christ to Salome; next, somewhat obscurely, he answers their notions of laws about marriage imposed in the Old Law, and, as they pretend, abrogated in the New; thirdly, he rebukes their perpetual clatter about the uncleanness of conjugal relations; and, fourth, he pulverizes their arguments derived from the fact, that the children of the resurrection “neither marry, nor are given in marriage.”
Then he gives his attention to another class of heretics boasting that they followed the example of Christ, and presuming to teach that marriage is of the devil. He expounds the exceptional celibacy of the Messiah, by the two natures of the Godman, which need nothing but a reverent statement to expose the fallacy of arguing from His example in this particular, seeing He, alone, of all the sons of men, is thus supreme over all considerations of human nature, pure and simple, as it exists in the sons of Adam. Moreover, He espoused the Church, which is His 405 wife. Clement expounds very wisely those sayings of our Lord which put honour upon voluntary celibacy, where the gift has been imparted, for His better service.
And here let it be noted, how continually the heresies of these times seem to turn on this matter of the sexes. It is impossible to cleanse a dirty house, without raising a dust and a bad smell; and heathenism, which had made lust into a religion, and the worship of its gods a school of gross vice, penetrating all classes of society, could not be exorcised, and give place to faith, hope and charity, without this process of conflict, in which Clement distinguishes himself. At the same time, the wisdom of our Lord’s precepts and counsels are manifest, in this history. Alike He taught the sanctity and blessedness of marriage and maternity, and the exceptional blessedness of the celibate when received as a gift of God, for a peculiar ministry. Thus heathen morals were rebuked and castigated, womanhood was lifted to a sphere of unwonted honour, and the home was created and sanctified in the purity and chastity of the Christian wife; while yet a celibate chastity was recognised as having a high place in the Christian system. The Lord prescribes to all, whether married or unmarried, a law of discipline and evangelical encraty. The Christian homes of England and America may be pointed out, thank God, as illustrating the divine wisdom; while the degraded monasteries of Italy and Spain and South America, with the horrible history of enforced celibacy in the Latin priesthood, are proofs of the unwisdom of those who imported into the Western churches the very heresies and abortive argumentations which Clement disdains, while he pulverizes them and blows them away, thoroughly purging his floor, and burning up this chaff.
VII.
(Chap. VI.)
Here it is specially important to observe what Clement demonstrates, not only from the teachings of the apostles, of Elijah and Samuel and the Master Himself, but, finally and irrefragably, from the apostolic example. He names St. Peter here as elsewhere, and notes his memorable history as a married man.21 He supposes St. Paul himself to have been married; and he instances St. Philip the deacon, and his married daughters, besides giving the right exposition of a passage which Carpocrates had shamefully distorted from its plain significance.
VIII.
(Chap. VII.)
He passes to a demonstration of the superiority of Christian continence over the sort of self-constraint lauded by Stoics and other philosophers. God only can enable man to practise a genuine continence, not merely contending with depraved lusts, but eradicating them. Here follow some interesting examples drawn from the brahmins and fakirs of India; interesting tokens, by the way, of the assaults the Gospel had already made upon their strongholds about the Ganges.
IX.
(Chap. VIII.)
Briefly he explains another text, “Sin shall not have dominion over you,” which the heretics wrested from the purpose and intent of St. Paul. He also returns to a passage from the apocryphal Gospel of the Hebrews, and to the pretended conversation of Christ with Salome, treating it, perhaps, with more consideration than it merits.
406
X.
(Chap. IX.)
But this Gospel of the Hebrews, and another apocryphal Gospel, that of the Egyptians, may be worthy of a few words just here. Jones (On the Canon, vol. i. p. 206) very learnedly maintains that Clement “never saw it,” nor used it for any quotation of his own. And, as for a Gospel written in the Hebrew tongue, Clement could not read Hebrew; the single citation he makes out of it, being, probably, at second hand. Greatly to the point is the argument of Lardner,22 therefore, who says, as settling the question of the value of these books, “If Clement, who lived at Alexandria, and was so well acquainted with almost all sorts of books, had (but a slight, or) no knowledge at all of them, how obscure must they have been; how little regarded by Catholic Christians.”
XI.
(Chap. X.; also Elucidation xvii., infra.)
Ingenious is Clement’s exposition of that saying of our Lord, “Where two or three are met together in my name,” etc. He explodes a monstrous exposition of the text, and ingeniously applies it to the Christian family. The husband and the wife living in chaste matrimony, and the child which God bestows, are three in sweet society, who may claim and enjoy the promise. This reflects great light upon the Christian home, as it rose, like a flower, out of the “Church in the house.” Family prayers, the graces before and after meat, the hymn “On lighting the lamps at eventide,” and the complines, or prayers at bedtime, are all the products of the divine contract to be with the “two or three” who are met in His name to claim that inconceivably precious promise. Other texts from St. Matthew are explained, in their Catholic verity, by our venerable author.
XII.
(Chap. XI.)
He further expounds the Catholic idea of marriage, and rescues, from heretical adulteration, the precept of Moses (Exo_19:15); introducing a lucid parallel, with the Apostolic command, (2Co_6:17; Cf. Exo_29:45; Lev_26:12) “Come out from among them, and be separate,” etc. He turns the tables on his foul antagonists; showing them that this very law obliges the Catholic Christian to separate himself alike from the abominations of the heathen, and from the depraved heretics who abuse the word of God, and “wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction.” This eleventh chapter of the third book abounds in Scriptural citations and expositions, and is to be specially praised for asserting the purity of married life, in connection with the inspired law concerning fasting and abstinence (1Co_7:3-5), laid down by the reasonably ascetic St. Paul.
XIII.
(Chap. XII.)
The melancholy example of Tatian is next instanced, in his departures from orthodox encraty. Against poor Tatian’s garrulity, he proves the sanctity of marriage, alike in the New and the Old Testaments. A curious argument he adduces against the ceremonial washing prescribed by the 407 law (Lev_15:18), but not against the same as a dictate of natural instinct. He considers that particular ceremonial law a protest against the polygamy which God tolerated, but never authorized, under Moses; and its abrogation (i.e., by the Synod of Jerusalem), is a testimony that there is no uncleanness, whatever, in the chaste society of the married pair, in Christ. He rescues other texts from the profane uses of the heretics, proving that our duty to abstain from laying up treasures here, merely favours the care of the poor and needy; and that the saying, that “the children of the kingdom neither marry nor are given in marriage,” respects only their estate after the resurrection. So the command about “caring for the things of God,” is harmonized with married life. But our author dwells on the apostle’s emphatic counsels against second marriages. It is noteworthy how deeply Clement’s orthodoxy has rooted itself in the Greek churches, where the clergy must be once married, but are not permitted to marry a second time.
A curious objection is met and dismissed. The man who excused himself “because he had married a wife,” was a great card for heretical manipulations; but no need of saying that Clement knows how to turn this, also, upon their own hands.
XIV.
(Chap. XIII.)
Julius Cassianus (assigned by Lardner to a.d. 190) was an Alexandrian Encratite, of whom, whatever his faults, Clement speaks not without respect. He is quoted with credit in the Stromata (book i. cap. xxi. p. 324 ), but comes into notice here, as having led off the school of Docetism. But Clement does not treat him as he does the vulgar and licentious errorist. He reproves him for his use of the Gospel according to the Egyptians, incidentally testifying to the Catholic recognition of only four Gospels. He refutes a Platonic idea of Cassian, as to the pre-existence of the soul. Also, he promises a full explanation, elsewhere, of “the coats of skins” (which Cassian seems to have thought the flesh itself), wherewith Adam and Eve were clothed. Lardner refers us to Beausobre for a curious discussion of this matter. Clement refutes a false argument from Christ’s hyperbole of hatred to wife and children and family ties, and also gives lucid explanations of passages from Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezra, which had been wrested to heretical abuse. In a similar manner, he overthrows what errorists had built upon Job’s saying, “who can bring a clean thing out of the unclean;” as also their false teachings on the texts, “In sin hath my mother conceived me,” “the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul,” and the apostolic instance of the athlete who is “temperate in all things.”
XV.
(See Chap. XVII.)
He proclaims the purity of physical generation, because of the parturition of the Blessed Virgin; castigating the docetism of Cassian, who had presumed to speak of the body of Jesus as a phantasm, and the grosser blasphemies of Marcion and Valentinus, equally destructive to the Christ of the Gospel.23 He overturns the whims of these latter deceivers, about Adam’s society with his wife, and concludes that our Lord’s assumption of the flesh of His mother, was a sufficient corroboration of that divine law by which the generations of mankind are continued.
XVI.
(Chap. XVIII.)
From all which Clement concludes that his two classes of heretics are alike wanderers from Catholic orthodoxy; whether, on the one hand, under divers pretexts glorifying an unreal continence 408 against honourable marriage, or, on the other, persuading themselves as speciously to an unlimited indulgence of their sinful lusts and passions. Once more he quotes the Old Testament and the New, which denounce uncleanness, but not the conjugal relations. He argues with indignation upon those who degrade the estate to which a bishop is called as “the husband of one wife, ruling his own house and children well.” Then he reverts to his idea of” the two or three,” maintaining that a holy marriage makes the bishop’s home “a house of the Lord” (see note 75, p. 1211, ed. Migne). And he concludes the book by repeating his remonstrance against the claim of these heretics to be veritable Gnostics, - a name he will by no means surrender to the enemies of truth.
XVII.
(On Matt. 18:20; and, see Supra, Elucidation XI.)
To the interpretation I have thought preferable, and which I ventured to enlarge, it should be added that our author subjoins others, founded on flesh, soul, and spirit; on vocation, election, and the Gnostic accepting both; and on the Jew and the Gentile, and the Church gathered from each race.
Over and over again Clement asserts that a life of chaste wedlock is not to be accounted imperfect.
On the celibate in practice, see Le Célibat des Prêtres, par l’abbé Chavard, Genève, 1874.
XVIII.
The Commentaria of Le Nourry have been my guide to the brief analysis of these Elucidations, though I have not always allowed the learned Benedictine to dictate an opinion, or to control my sense of our author’s argument.
FOOTNOTES
16 [Elucidation XIV.]
17 1Co_15:34. Clement reads here ἐκνιψατε, “wash,” instead of ἐκνήψατε, “awake.”
18 [Elucidation XV.]
19 [Elucidation XVI.]
20 See vol. 1. p. 352, book i. cap. xxvii., note 192, this series.
21 See the touching story of St. Peter’s words to his wife as she was led to matyrdom (Stromata, book vii. p. 541, Edinburgh Edition).
22 Works, ii. 252. See also the apocryphal collection in this series, hereafter.
23 In using the phase ecclesia nostra (ὴ κατὰ τὴν Ἐκκλψησίαν καθ ̓ ἡμας), which I take to refer to the Church Militant, we encounter a formula which we use differently in our day.
