ANTE-NICENE
CHRISTIAN LIBRARY:
_TRANSLATIONS OF
THE WRITINGS OF THE FATHERS
DOWN TO A.D. 325._
EDITED BY THE
REV. ALEXANDER ROBERTS, D.D.,
AND
JAMES DONALDSON, LL.D.
VOL. XII.
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.
VOL. II.
EDINBURGH:
T. & T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET.
MDCCCLXIX.
MURRAY AND GIBB, EDINBURGH,
PRINTERS TO HER MAJESTY’S STATIONERY OFFICE
THE WRITINGS
OF
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.
TRANSLATED BY
THE REV. WILLIAM WILSON, M.A.,
MUSSELBURGH.
VOLUME II.
EDINBURGH:
T. & T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET.
LONDON: HAMILTON & CO. DUBLIN: JOHN ROBERTSON & CO.
MDCCCLXIX.
CONTENTS.
THE MISCELLANIES.
BOOK II.
CHAP. PAGE
1. Introductory, 1
2. The Knowledge of God can be attained only through Faith, 3
3. Faith not a product of Nature, 6
4. Faith the foundation of all Knowledge, 8
5. He proves by several examples that the Greeks drew from
the Sacred Writers, 12
6. The Excellence and Utility of Faith, 16
7. The Utility of Fear. Objections Answered, 20
8. The Vagaries of Basilides and Valentinus as to Fear being
the Cause of Things, 22
9. The Connection of the Christian Virtues, 26
10. To what the Philosopher applies himself, 29
11. The Knowledge which comes through Faith the Surest of All, 30
12. Twofold Faith, 33
13. On First and Second Repentance, 35
14. How a Thing may be Involuntary, 37
15. On the different kinds of Voluntary Actions, and the Sins
thence proceeding, 38
16. How we are to explain the passages of Scripture which
ascribe to God Human Affections, 43
17. On the various kinds of Knowledge, 45
18. The Mosaic Law the fountain of all Ethics, and the source
from which the Greeks drew theirs, 47
19. The true Gnostic is an imitator of God, especially in
Beneficence, 57
20. The true Gnostic exercises Patience and Self-restraint, 60
21. Opinions of various Philosophers on the Chief Good, 71
22. Plato’s Opinion, that the Chief Good consists in
assimilation to God, and its agreement with Scripture, 74
23. On Marriage, 78
BOOK III.
1. Basilidis Sententiam de Continentia et Nuptiis refutat, 84
2. Carpocratis et Epiphanis Sententiam de Feminarum
Communitate refutat, 86
3. Quatenus Plato aliique e veteribus præiverint Marcionitis
aliisque Hæreticis, qui a Nuptiis ideo abstinent quia
Creaturam malam existimant et nasci Homines in Pœnam
opinantur, 89
4. Quibus prætextibus utantur Hæretici ad omnis generis
licentiam et libidinem exercendam, 95
5. Duo genera Hæreticorum notat: prius illorum qui omnia
omnibus licere pronuntiant, quos refutat, 102
6. Secundum genus Hæreticorum aggreditur, illorum scilicet
qui ex impia de deo omnium conditore Sententia,
Continentiam exercent, 105
7. Qua in re Christianorum Continentia eam quam sibi
vindicant Philosophi antecellat, 110
8. Loca S. Scripturæ ab Hæreticis in vituperium Matrimonii
adducta explicat; et primo verba Apostoli Rom. vi. 14,
ab Hæreticorum perversa interpretatione vindicat, 112
9. Dictum Christi ad Salomen exponit, quod tanquam in
vituperium Nuptiarum prolatum Hæretici allegabant, 113
10. Verba Christi Matt. xviii. 20, mystice exponit, 116
11. Legis et Christi mandatum de non Concupiscendo exponit, 117
12. Verba Apostoli 1 Cor. vii. 5, 39, 40, aliaque S. Scripturæ
loca eodem spectantia explicat, 121
13. Julii Cassiani Hæretici verbis respondet; item loco quem ex
Evangelio Apocrypho idem adduxerat, 128
14. 2 Cor. xi. 3, et Eph. iv. 24, exponit, 129
15. 1 Cor. vii. 1; Luc. xiv. 26; Isa. lvi. 2, 3, explicat, 130
16. Jer. xx. 14; Job xiv. 3; Ps. l. 5; 1 Cor. ix. 27, exponit, 132
17. Qui Nuptias et Generationem malas asserunt, ii et dei
Creationem et ipsam evangelii Dispensationem vituperant, 133
18. Duas extremas Opiniones esse vitandas: primam illorum qui
Creatoris odio a Nuptiis abstinent; alteram illorum qui
hinc occasionem arripiunt nefariis libidinibus
indulgendi, 135
BOOK IV.
1. Order of Contents, 139
2. The meaning of the name Stromata [Miscellanies], 140
3. The true Excellence of Man, 142
4. The Praises of Martyrdom, 145
5. On Contempt for Pain, Poverty, and other external things, 148
6. Some points in the Beatitudes, 150
7. The Blessedness of the Martyr, 158
8. Women as well as Men, Slaves as well as Freemen,
Candidates for the Martyr’s Crown, 165
9. Christ’s Sayings respecting Martyrdom, 170
10. Those who offered themselves for Martyrdom reproved, 173
11. The objection, Why do you suffer if God cares for you,
answered, 174
12. Basilides’ idea of Martyrdom refuted, 175
13. Valentinian’s Vagaries about the Abolition of Death
refuted, 179
14. The Love of All, even of our Enemies, 182
15. On avoiding Offence, 183
16. Passages of Scripture respecting the Constancy, Patience,
and Love of the Martyrs, 184
17. Passages from Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians on
Martyrdom, 187
18. On Love, and the repressing of our Desires, 190
19. Women as well as Men capable of Perfection, 193
20. A Good Wife, 196
21. Description of the Perfect Man, or Gnostic, 199
22. The true Gnostic does Good, not from fear of Punishment
or hope of Reward, but only for the sake of Good
itself, 202
23. The same subject continued, 207
24. The reason and end of Divine Punishments, 210
25. True Perfection consists in the Knowledge and Love of God, 212
26. How the Perfect Man treats the Body and the Things of the
World, 215
BOOK V.
1. On Faith, 220
2. On Hope, 228
3. The objects of Faith and Hope perceived by the Mind alone, 229
4. Divine Things wrapped up in Figures both in the Sacred
and in Heathen Writers, 232
5. On the Symbols of Pythagoras, 236
6. The Mystic Meaning of the Tabernacle and its Furniture, 240
7. The Egyptian Symbols and Enigmas of Sacred Things, 245
8. The use of the Symbolic Style by Poets and Philosophers, 247
9. Reasons for veiling the Truth in Symbols, 254
10. The opinion of the Apostles on veiling the Mysteries
of the Faith, 257
11. Abstraction from Material Things necessary in order to
attain to the true Knowledge of God, 261
12. God cannot be embraced in Words or by the Mind, 267
13. The Knowledge of God a Divine Gift, according to the
Philosophers, 270
14. Greek Plagiarisms from the Hebrews, 274
BOOK VI.
1. Plan, 302
2. The subject of Plagiarisms resumed. The Greeks
plagiarized from one another, 304
3. Plagiarism by the Greeks of the Miracles related in the
Sacred Books of the Hebrews, 319
4. The Greeks drew many of their Philosophical Tenets from
the Egyptian and Indian Gymnosophists, 323
5. The Greeks had some Knowledge of the true God, 326
6. The Gospel was preached to Jews and Gentiles in Hades, 328
7. What true Philosophy is, and whence so called, 335
8. Philosophy is Knowledge given by God, 339
9. The Gnostic free of all Perturbations of the Soul, 344
10. The Gnostic avails himself of the help of all Human
Knowledge, 349
11. The Mystical Meanings in the proportions of Numbers,
Geometrical Ratios, and Music, 352
12. Human Nature possesses an adaptation for Perfection;
the Gnostic alone attains it, 359
13. Degrees of Glory in Heaven corresponding with the
Dignities of the Church below, 365
14. Degrees of Glory in Heaven, 366
15. Different Degrees of Knowledge, 371
16. Gnostic Exposition of the Decalogue, 383
17. Philosophy conveys only an imperfect Knowledge of God, 393
18. The use of Philosophy to the Gnostic, 401
BOOK VII.
1. The Gnostic a true Worshipper of God, and unjustly
calumniated by Unbelievers as an Atheist, 406
2. The Son the Ruler and Saviour of All, 409
3. The Gnostic aims at the nearest Likeness possible to God
and His Son, 414
4. The Heathens made Gods like themselves, whence springs
all Superstition, 421
5. The Holy Soul a more excellent Temple than any Edifice
built by Man, 424
6. Prayers and Praise from a Pure Mind, ceaselessly offered,
far better than Sacrifices, 426
7. What sort of Prayer the Gnostic employs, and how it is
heard by God, 431
8. The Gnostic so addicted to Truth as not to need to use an
Oath, 442
9. Those who teach others, ought to excel in Virtues, 444
10. Steps to Perfection, 446
11. Description of the Gnostic’s Life, 449
12. The true Gnostic is Beneficent, Continent, and despises
Worldly Things, 455
13. Description of the Gnostic continued, 466
14. Description of the Gnostic furnished by an Exposition of
1 Cor. vi. 1, etc., 468
15. The objection to join the Church on account of the
diversity of Heresies answered, 472
16. Scripture the Criterion by which Truth and Heresy are
distinguished, 476
17. The Tradition of the Church prior to that of the
Heresies, 485
18. The Distinction between Clean and Unclean Animals in the
Law symbolical of the Distinction between the Church,
and Jews, and Heretics, 488
BOOK VIII.
1. The object of Philosophical and Theological Inquiry--the
Discovery of Truth, 490
2. The necessity of Perspicuous Definition, 491
3. Demonstration defined, 492
4. To prevent Ambiguity, we must begin with clear Definition, 496
5. Application of Demonstration to Sceptical Suspense of
Judgment, 500
6. Definitions, Genera, and Species, 502
7. On the Causes of Doubt or Assent, 505
8. The Method of classifying Things and Names, 506
9. On the different kinds of Causes, 508
INDEXES--Index of Texts, 515
Index of Subjects, 525
THE MISCELLANIES.
BOOK II.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY.
As Scripture has called the Greeks pilferers of the Barbarian[1]
philosophy, it will next have to be considered how this may be briefly
demonstrated. For we shall not only show that they have imitated and
copied the marvels recorded in our books; but we shall prove, besides,
that they have plagiarized and falsified (our writings being, as we
have shown, older) the chief dogmas they hold, both on faith and
knowledge and science, and hope and love, and also on repentance and
temperance and the fear of God,--a whole swarm, verily, of the virtues
of truth.
Whatever the explication necessary on the point in hand shall demand,
shall be embraced, and especially what is occult in the Barbarian
philosophy, the department of symbol and enigma; which those who have
subjected the teaching of the ancients to systematic philosophic
study have affected, as being in the highest degree serviceable, nay,
absolutely necessary to the knowledge of truth. In addition, it will
in my opinion form an appropriate sequel to defend those tenets, on
account of which the Greeks assail us, making use of a few scriptures,
if perchance the Jew also may listen and be able quietly to turn
from what he has believed to Him on whom he has not believed. The
ingenuous among the philosophers will then with propriety be taken up
in a friendly exposure both of their life and of the discovery of new
dogmas, not in the way of our avenging ourselves on our detractors
(for that is far from being the case with those who have learned to
bless those who curse, even though they needlessly discharge on us
words of blasphemy), but with a view to their conversion; if by any
means these adepts in wisdom may feel ashamed, being brought to their
senses by barbarian demonstration; so as to be able, although late, to
see clearly of what sort are the intellectual acquisitions for which
they make pilgrimages over the seas. Those they have stolen are to be
pointed out, that we may thereby pull down their conceit; and of those
on the discovery of which through investigation they plume themselves,
the refutation will be furnished. By consequence, also we must treat of
what is called the curriculum of study--how far it is serviceable;[2]
and of astrology, and mathematics, and magic, and sorcery. For all the
Greeks boast of these as the highest sciences. “He who reproves boldly
is a peacemaker.”[3] We have often said already that we have neither
practised nor do we study the expressing ourselves in pure Greek; for
this suits those who seduce the multitude from the truth. But true
philosophic demonstration will contribute to the profit not of the
listeners’ tongues, but of their minds. And, in my opinion, he who is
solicitous about truth ought not to frame his language with artfulness
and care, but only to try to express his meaning as he best can. For
those who are particular about words, and devote their time to them,
miss the things. It is a feat fit for the gardener to pluck without
injury the rose that is growing among the thorns; and for the craftsman
to find out the pearl buried in the oyster’s flesh. And they say that
fowls have flesh of the most agreeable quality, when, through not
being supplied with abundance of food, they pick their sustenance with
difficulty, scraping with their feet. If any one, then, speculating
on what is similar, wants to arrive[4] at the truth [that is] in the
numerous Greek plausibilities, like the real face beneath masks, he
will hunt it out with much pains. For the power that appeared in the
vision to Hermas said, “Whatever may be revealed to you, shall be
revealed.”[5]
CHAPTER II.
THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD CAN BE ATTAINED ONLY THROUGH FAITH.
“Be not elated on account of thy wisdom,” say the Proverbs. “In all
thy ways acknowledge her, that she may direct thy ways, and that thy
foot may not stumble.” By these remarks he means to show that our deeds
ought to be conformable to reason, and to manifest further that we
ought to select and possess what is useful out of all culture. Now the
ways of wisdom are various that lead right to the way of truth. Faith
is the way. “Thy foot shall not stumble” is said with reference to some
who seem to oppose the one divine administration of Providence. Whence
it is added, “Be not wise in thine own eyes,” according to the impious
ideas which revolt against the administration of God. “But fear God,”
who alone is powerful. Whence it follows as a consequence that we are
not to oppose God. The sequel especially teaches clearly, that “the
fear of God is departure from evil;” for it is said, “and depart from
all evil.” Such is the discipline of wisdom (“for whom the Lord loveth
He chastens”[6]), causing pain in order to produce understanding,
and restoring to peace and immortality. Accordingly, the Barbarian
philosophy, which we follow, is in reality perfect and true. And so
it is said in the book of Wisdom: “For He hath given me the unerring
knowledge of things that exist, to know the constitution of the world,”
and so forth, down to “and the virtues of roots.” Among all these he
comprehends natural science, which treats of all the phenomena in the
world of sense. And in continuation, he alludes also to intellectual
objects in what he subjoins: “And what is hidden or manifest I know;
for Wisdom, the artificer of all things, taught me.”[7] You have, in
brief, the professed aim of our philosophy; and the learning of these
branches, when pursued with right course of conduct leads through
Wisdom, the artificer of all things, to the Ruler of all,--a Being
difficult to grasp and apprehend, ever receding and withdrawing from
him who pursues. But He who is far off has--oh ineffable marvel!--come
very near. “I am a God that draws near,” says the Lord. He is in
essence remote; “for how is it that what is begotten can have
approached the Unbegotten?” But He is very near in virtue of that
power which holds all things in its embrace. “Shall one do aught in
secret, and I see him not?”[8] For the power of God is always present,
in contact with us, in the exercise of inspection, of beneficence, of
instruction. Whence Moses, persuaded that God is not to be known by
human wisdom, said, “Show me Thy glory;”[9] and into the thick darkness
where God’s voice was, pressed to enter--that is, into the inaccessible
and invisible ideas respecting Existence. For God is not in darkness
or in place, but above both space and time, and qualities of objects.
Wherefore neither is He at any time in a part, either as containing or
as contained, either by limitation or by section. “For what house will
ye build to me?” saith the Lord.[10] Nay, He has not even built one for
Himself, since He cannot be contained. And though heaven be called His
throne, not even thus is He contained, but He rests delighted in the
creation.
It is clear, then, that the truth has been hidden from us; and if
that has been already shown by one example, we shall establish it a
little after by several more. How entirely worthy of approbation are
they who are both willing to learn, and able, according to Solomon,
“to know wisdom and instruction, and to perceive the words of wisdom,
to receive knotty words, and to perceive true righteousness,” there
being another [righteousness as well], not according to the truth,
taught by the Greek laws, and by the rest of the philosophers. “And to
direct judgments,” it is said--not those of the bench, but he means
that we must preserve sound and free of error the judicial faculty
which is within us--“That I may give subtlety to the simple, to the
young man sense and understanding.”[11] “For the wise man,” who has
been persuaded to obey the commandments, “having heard these things,
will become wiser” by knowledge; and “the intelligent man will acquire
rule, and will understand a parable and a dark word, the sayings and
enigmas of the wise.”[12] For it is not spurious words which those
inspired by God and those who are gained over by them adduce, nor
is it snares in which the most of the sophists entangle the young,
spending their time on nought true. But those who possess the Holy
Spirit “search the deep things of God,”[13]--that is, grasp the secret
that is in the prophecies. “To impart of holy things to the dogs” is
forbidden, so long as they remain beasts. For never ought those who
are envious and perturbed, and still infidel in conduct, shameless in
barking at investigation, to dip in the divine and clear stream of the
living water. “Let not the waters of thy fountain overflow, and let
thy waters spread over thine own streets.”[14] For it is not many who
understand such things as they fall in with; or know them even after
learning them, though they think they do, according to the worthy
Heraclitus. Does not even he seem to thee to censure those who believe
not? “Now my just one shall live by faith,”[15] the prophet said.
And another prophet also says, “Except ye believe, neither shall ye
understand.”[16] For how ever could the soul admit the transcendental
contemplation of such themes, while unbelief respecting what was to
be learned struggled within? But faith, which the Greeks disparage,
deeming it futile and barbarous, is a voluntary preconception,[17]
the assent of piety--“the subject of things hoped for, the evidence
of things not seen,” according to the divine apostle. “For hereby,”
pre-eminently, “the elders obtained a good report. But without faith
it is impossible to please God.”[18] Others have defined faith to
be a uniting assent to an unseen object, as certainly the proof of
an unknown thing is an evident assent. If then it be choice, being
desirous of something, the desire is in this instance intellectual.
And since choice is the beginning of action, faith is discovered to be
the beginning of action, being the foundation of rational choice in
the case of any one who exhibits to himself the previous demonstration
through faith. Voluntarily to follow what is useful, is the first
principle of understanding. Unswerving choice, then, gives considerable
momentum in the direction of knowledge. The exercise of faith
directly becomes knowledge, reposing on a sure foundation. Knowledge,
accordingly, is defined by the sons of the philosophers as a habit,
which cannot be overthrown by reason. Is there any other true condition
such as this, except piety, of which alone the Word is teacher?[19] I
think not. Theophrastus says that sensation is the root of faith. For
from it the rudimentary principles extend to the reason that is in us,
and the understanding. He who believeth then the divine Scriptures
with sure judgment, receives in the voice of God, who bestowed the
Scripture, a demonstration that cannot be impugned. Faith, then, is not
established by demonstration. “Blessed therefore those who, not having
seen, yet have believed.”[20] The Siren’s songs exhibiting a power
above human, fascinated those that came near, conciliating them, almost
against their will, to the reception of what was said.
CHAPTER III.
FAITH NOT A PRODUCT OF NATURE.
Now the followers of Basilides regard faith as natural, as they also
refer it to choice, [representing it] as finding ideas by intellectual
comprehension without demonstration; while the followers of Valentinus
assign faith to us, the simple, but will have it that knowledge springs
up in their own selves (who are saved by nature) through the advantage
of a germ of superior excellence, saying that it is as far removed from
faith as[21] the spiritual is from the animal. Further, the followers
of Basilides say that faith as well as choice is proper according to
every interval; and that in consequence of the supramundane selection
mundane faith accompanies all nature, and that the free gift of faith
is conformable to the hope of each. Faith, then, is no longer the
direct result of free choice, if it is a natural advantage.
Nor will he who has not believed, not being the author [of his
unbelief], meet with a due recompense; and he that has believed is not
the cause of his belief]. And the entire peculiarity and difference
of belief and unbelief will not fall under either praise or censure,
if we reflect rightly, since there attaches to it the antecedent
natural necessity proceeding from the Almighty. And if we are pulled
like inanimate things by the puppet-strings of natural powers,
willingness[22] and unwillingness, and impulse, which is the antecedent
of both, are mere redundancies. And for my part, I am utterly incapable
of conceiving such an animal as has its appetencies, which are moved
by external causes, under the dominion of necessity. And what place is
there any longer for the repentance of him who was once an unbeliever,
through which comes forgiveness of sins? So that neither is baptism
rational, nor the blessed seal,[23] nor the Son, nor the Father. But
God, as I think, turns out to be the distribution to men of natural
powers, which has not as the foundation of salvation voluntary faith.
CHAPTER IV.
FAITH THE FOUNDATION OF ALL KNOWLEDGE.
But we, who have heard by the Scriptures that self-determining choice
and refusal have been given by the Lord to men, rest in the infallible
criterion of faith, manifesting a willing spirit, since we have chosen
life and believe God through His voice. And he who has believed the
Word knows the matter to be true; for the Word is truth. But he who has
disbelieved Him that speaks, has disbelieved God.
“By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of
God, so that what is seen was not made of things which appear,” says
the apostle. “By faith Abel offered to God a fuller sacrifice than
Cain, by which he received testimony that he was righteous, God giving
testimony to him respecting his gifts; and by it he, being dead, yet
speaketh,” and so forth, down to “than enjoy the pleasures of sin
for a season.”[24] Faith having, therefore, justified these before
the law, made them heirs of the divine promise. Why then should I
review and adduce any further testimonies of faith from the history
in our hands? “For the time would fail me were I to tell of Gideon,
Barak, Samson, Jephtha, David, and Samuel, and the prophets,” and what
follows.[25] Now, inasmuch as there are four things in which the truth
resides--Sensation, Understanding, Knowledge, Opinion,--intellectual
apprehension is first in the order of nature; but in our case, and
in relation to ourselves, Sensation is first, and of Sensation and
Understanding the essence of Knowledge is formed; and evidence is
common to Understanding and Sensation. Well, Sensation is the ladder to
Knowledge; while Faith, advancing over the pathway of the objects of
sense, leaves Opinion behind, and speeds to things free of deception,
and reposes in the truth.
Should one say that Knowledge is founded on demonstration by a process
of reasoning, let him hear that first principles are incapable of
demonstration; for they are known neither by art nor sagacity. For the
latter is conversant about objects that are susceptible of change,
while the former is practical solely, and not theoretical.[26] Hence
it is thought that the first cause of the universe can be apprehended
by faith alone. For all knowledge is capable of being taught; and
what is capable of being taught is founded on what is known before.
But the first cause of the universe was not previously known to the
Greeks; neither, accordingly, to Thales, who came to the conclusion
that water was the first cause; nor to the other natural philosophers
who succeeded him, since it was Anaxagoras who was the first who
assigned to Mind the supremacy over material things. But not even he
preserved the dignity suited to the efficient cause, describing as
he did certain silly vortices, together with the inertia and even
foolishness of Mind. Wherefore also the Word says, “Call no man master
on earth.”[27] For knowledge is a state of mind that results from
demonstration; but Faith is a grace which from what is indemonstrable
conducts to what is universal and simple, what is neither with matter,
nor matter, nor under matter. But those who believe not, as to be
expected, drag all down from heaven, and the region of the invisible,
to earth, “absolutely grasping with their hands rocks and oaks,”
according to Plato. For, clinging to all such things, they asseverate
that that alone exists which can be touched and handled, defining body
and essence to be identical: disputing against themselves, they very
piously defend the existence of certain intellectual and bodiless forms
descending somewhere from above from the invisible world, vehemently
maintaining that there is a true essence. “Lo, I make new things,”
saith the Word, “which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor hath it
entered into the heart of man.”[28] With a new eye, a new ear, a new
heart, whatever can be seen and heard is to be apprehended, by the
faith and understanding of the disciples of the Lord, who speak, hear,
and act spiritually. For there is genuine coin, and other that is
spurious; which no less deceives unprofessionals, that it does not
the money-changers; who know through having learned how to separate
and distinguish what has a false stamp from what is genuine. So the
money-changer only says to the unprofessional man that the coin is
counterfeit. But the reason why, only the banker’s apprentice, and he
that is trained to this department, learns.
Now Aristotle says that the judgment which follows knowledge is in
truth faith. Accordingly, faith is something superior to knowledge,
and is its criterion. Conjecture, which is only a feeble supposition,
counterfeits faith; as the flatterer counterfeits a friend, and the
wolf the dog. And as the workman sees that by learning certain things
he becomes an artificer, and the helmsman by being instructed in the
art will be able to steer; he does not regard the mere wishing to
become excellent and good enough, but he must learn it by the exercise
of obedience. But to obey the Word, whom we call Instructor, is to
believe Him, going against Him in nothing. For how can we take up a
position of hostility to God? Knowledge, accordingly, is characterized
by faith; and faith, by a kind of divine mutual and reciprocal
correspondence, becomes characterized by knowledge.
Epicurus, too, who very greatly preferred pleasure to truth, supposes
faith to be a preconception of the mind; and defines preconception to
be a grasping at something evident, and at the clear understanding of
the thing; and asserts that, without preconception, no one can either
inquire, or doubt, or judge, or even argue. How can one, without a
preconceived idea of what he is aiming after, learn about that which
is the subject of his investigation? He, again, who has learned has
already turned his preconception[29] into comprehension. And if he
who learns, learns not without a preconceived idea which takes in
what is expressed, that man has ears to hear the truth. And happy is
the man that speaks to the ears of those who hear; as happy certainly
also is he who is a child of obedience. Now to hear is to understand.
If, then, faith is nothing else than a preconception of the mind
in regard to what is the subject of discourse, and obedience is so
called, and understanding and persuasion; no one shall learn aught
without faith, since no one [learns aught] without preconception.
Consequently there is a more ample demonstration of the complete truth
of what was spoken by the prophet, “Unless ye believe, neither will ye
understand.” Paraphrasing this oracle, Heraclitus of Ephesus says, “If
a man hope not, he will not find that which is not hoped for, seeing
it is inscrutable and inaccessible.” Plato the philosopher, also, in
_The Laws_, says, “that he who would be blessed and happy, must be
straight from the beginning a partaker of the truth, so as to live true
for as long a period as possible; for he is a man of faith. But the
unbeliever is one to whom voluntary falsehood is agreeable; and the man
to whom involuntary falsehood is agreeable is senseless;[30] neither of
which is desirable. For he who is devoid of friendliness, is faithless
and ignorant.” And does he not enigmatically say in _Euthydemus_,
that this is “the regal wisdom?” In _The Statesman_ he says
expressly, “So that the knowledge of the true king is kingly; and he
who possesses it, whether a prince or private person, shall by all
means, in consequence of this act, be rightly styled royal.” Now those
who have believed in Christ both are and are called _Chrestoi_
(good),[31] as those who are cared for by the true king are kingly.
For as the wise are wise by their wisdom, and those observant of law
are so by the law; so also those who belong to Christ the King are
kings, and those that are Christ’s Christians. Then, in continuation,
he adds clearly, “What is right will turn out to be lawful, law being
in its nature right reason, and not found in writings or elsewhere.”
And the stranger of Elea pronounces the kingly and statesmanlike man
“_a living law_.” Such is he who fulfils the law, “doing the will
of the Father,”[32] inscribed on a lofty pillar, and set as an example
of divine virtue to all who possess the power of seeing. The Greeks
are acquainted with the staves of the Ephori at Lacedæmon, inscribed
with the law on wood. But my law, as was said above, is both royal and
living; and it is right reason. “Law, which is king of all--of mortals
and immortals,” as the Bœotian Pindar sings. For Speusippus,[33] in the
first book against Cleophon, seems to write like Plato on this wise:
“For if royalty be a good thing, and the wise man the only king and
ruler, the law, which is right reason, is good;”[34] which is the case.
The Stoics teach what is in conformity with this, assigning kinghood,
priesthood, prophecy, legislation, riches, true beauty, noble birth,
freedom, to the wise man alone. But that he is exceedingly difficult to
find, is confessed even by them.
CHAPTER V.
HE PROVES BY SEVERAL EXAMPLES THAT THE GREEKS
DREW FROM THE SACRED WRITERS.
Accordingly all those above mentioned dogmas appear to have been
transmitted from Moses the great to the Greeks. That all things belong
to the wise man, is taught in these words: “And because God hath showed
me mercy, I have all things.”[35] And that he is beloved of God, God
intimates when He says, “The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the
God of Jacob.”[36] For the first is found to have been expressly
called “friend;”[37] and the second is shown to have received a new
name, signifying “he that sees God;”[38] while Isaac, God in a figure
selected for Himself as a consecrated sacrifice, to be a type to us of
the economy of salvation.
Now among the Greeks, Minos the king of nine years’ reign, and
familiar friend of Zeus, is celebrated in song; they having heard how
once God conversed with Moses, “as one speaking with his friend.”[39]
Moses, then, was a sage, king, legislator. But our Saviour surpasses
all human nature. He is so lovely, as to be alone loved by us, whose
hearts are set on the true beauty, for “He was the true light.”[40] He
is shown to be a King, as such hailed by unsophisticated children and
by the unbelieving and ignorant Jews, and heralded by the prophets.
So rich is He, that He despised the whole earth, and the gold above
and beneath it, with all glory, when given to Him by the adversary.
What need is there to say that He is the only High Priest, who alone
possesses the knowledge of the worship of God?[41] He is Melchizedek,
“King of peace,”[42] the most fit of all to head the race of men.
A legislator too, inasmuch as He gave the law by the mouth of the
prophets, enjoining and teaching most distinctly what things are to be
done, and what not. Who of nobler lineage than He whose only Father is
God? Come, then, let us produce Plato assenting to those very dogmas.
The wise man he calls rich in the _Phædrus_, when he says, “O
dear Pan, and whatever other gods are here, grant me to become fair
within; and whatever external things I have, let them be agreeable to
what is within. I would reckon the wise man rich.”[43] And the Athenian
stranger,[44] finding fault with those who think that those who have
many possessions are rich, speaks thus: “For the very rich to be also
good is impossible--those, I mean, whom the multitude count rich. Those
they call rich, who, among a few men, are owners of the possessions
worth most money; which any bad man may possess.” “The whole world of
wealth belongs to the believer,”[45] Solomon says, “but not a penny to
the unbeliever.” Much more, then, is the scripture to be believed which
says, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than
for a rich man”[46] to lead a philosophic life. But, on the other
hand, it blesses “the poor;”[47] as Plato understood when he said,
“It is not the diminishing of one’s resources, but the augmenting of
insatiableness, that is to be considered poverty; for it is not slender
means that ever constitutes poverty, but insatiableness, from which
the good man being free, will also be rich.” And in _Alcibiades_
he calls vice a servile thing, and virtue the attribute of freemen.
“Take away from you the heavy yoke, and take up the easy one,”[48] says
the Scripture; as also the poets call [vice] a slavish yoke. And the
expression, “Ye have sold yourselves to your sins,” agrees with what is
said above: “Every one, then, who committeth sin is a slave; and the
slave abideth not in the house for ever. But if the Son shall make you
free, then shall ye be free, and the truth shall make you free.”[49]
And again, that the wise man is beautiful, the Athenian stranger
asserts, in the same way as if one were to affirm that certain persons
were just, even should they happen to be ugly in their persons. And in
speaking thus with respect to eminent rectitude of character, no one
who should assert them to be on this account beautiful would be thought
to speak extravagantly. And “His appearance was inferior to all the
sons of men,”[50] prophecy predicted.
Plato, moreover, has called the wise man a king, in _The Statesman_.
The remark is quoted above.
These points being demonstrated, let us recur again to our discourse
on faith. Well, with the fullest demonstration, Plato proves, that
there is need of faith everywhere, celebrating peace at the same
time: “For no man will ever be trusty and sound in seditions without
entire virtue. There are numbers of mercenaries full of fight, and
willing to die in war; but, with a very few exceptions, the most of
them are desperadoes and villains, insolent and senseless.” If these
observations are right, “every legislator who is even of slight use,
will, in making his laws, have an eye to the greatest virtue. Such
is fidelity,”[51] which we need at all times, both in peace and in
war, and in all the rest of our life, for it appears to embrace the
other virtues. “But the best thing is neither war nor sedition, for
the necessity of these is to be deprecated. But peace with one another
and kindly feeling are what is best.” From these remarks the greatest
prayer evidently is to have peace, according to Plato. And faith is
the greatest mother of the virtues. Accordingly it is rightly said
in Solomon, “Wisdom is in the mouth of the faithful.”[52] Since also
Xenocrates, in his book on “Intelligence,” says “that wisdom is the
knowledge of first causes and of intellectual essence.” He considers
intelligence as twofold, practical and theoretical, which latter is
human wisdom. Consequently wisdom is intelligence, but all intelligence
is not wisdom. And it has been shown, that the knowledge of the first
cause of the universe is of faith, but is not demonstration. For it
were strange that the followers of the Samian Pythagoras, rejecting
demonstrations of subjects of question, should regard the bare
_ipse dixit_[53] as ground of belief; and that this expression
alone sufficed for the confirmation of what they heard, while those
devoted to the contemplation of the truth, presuming to disbelieve the
trustworthy Teacher, God the only Saviour, should demand of Him tests
of His utterances. But He says, “He that hath ears to hear, let him
hear.” And who is he? Let Epicharmus say:
“Mind sees, mind hears; all besides is deaf and blind.”[54]
Rating some as unbelievers, Heraclitus says, “Not knowing how to hear
or to speak;” aided doubtless by Solomon, who says, “If thou lovest to
hear, thou shalt comprehend; and if thou incline thine ear, thou shalt
be wise.”[55]
CHAPTER VI.
THE EXCELLENCE AND UTILITY OF FAITH.
“Lord, who hath believed our report?”[56] Isaiah says. For “faith
cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God,” saith the apostle.
“How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And
how shall they believe on Him whom they have not heard? And how shall
they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach except they
be sent? As it is written, How beautiful are the feet of those that
publish glad tidings of good things!”[57] You see how he brings faith
by hearing, and the preaching of the apostles, up to the word of the
Lord, and to the Son of God. We do not yet understand the word of the
Lord to be demonstration.
As, then, playing at ball not only depends on one throwing the ball
skilfully, but it requires besides one to catch it dexterously, that
the game may be gone through according to the rules for ball; so also
is it the case that teaching is reliable when faith on the part of
those who hear, being, so to speak, a sort of natural art, contributes
to the process of learning. So also the earth co-operates, through its
productive power, being fit for the sowing of the seed. For there is no
good of the very best instruction without the exercise of the receptive
faculty on the part of the learner, not even of prophecy, when there is
the absence of docility on the part of those who hear. For dry twigs,
being ready to receive the power of fire, are kindled with great ease;
and the far-famed stone[58] attracts steel through affinity, as the
tear of the Succinum drags to itself twigs, and amber sets chaff in
motion. And the substances attracted obey them, attracted by a subtle
spirit, not as a cause, but as a concurring cause.
There being then a twofold species of vice--that characterized by craft
and stealth, and that which leads and drives with violence--the divine
Word cries, calling all together; knowing perfectly well those that
will not obey; notwithstanding then since to obey or not is in our
own power, provided we have not the excuse of ignorance to adduce. He
makes a just call, and demands of each according to his strength. For
some are able as well as willing, having reached this point through
practice and being purified; while others, if they are not yet able,
already have the will. Now to will is the act of the soul, but to do is
not without the body. Nor are actions estimated by their issue alone;
but they are judged also according to the element of free choice in
each,--if he chose easily, if he repented of his sins, if he reflected
on his failures and repented (μετέγνω), which is (μετὰ ταῦτα ἔγνω)
“afterwards knew.” For repentance is a tardy knowledge, and primitive
innocence is knowledge. Repentance, then, is an effect of faith. For
unless a man believe that to which he was addicted to be sin, he will
not abandon it; and if he do not believe punishment to be impending
over the transgressor, and salvation to be the portion of him who lives
according to the commandments, he will not reform.
Hope, too, is based on faith. Accordingly the followers of Basilides
define faith to be, the assent of the soul to any of those things,
that do not affect the senses through not being present. And hope
is the expectation of the possession of good. Necessarily, then, is
expectation founded on faith. Now he is faithful who keeps inviolably
what is entrusted to him; and we are entrusted with the utterances
respecting God and the divine words, the commands along with the
execution of the injunctions. This is the faithful servant, who is
praised by the Lord. And when it is said, “God is faithful,” it is
intimated that He is worthy to be believed when declaring aught.
Now His Word declares; and “God” Himself is “faithful.”[59] How,
then, if to believe is to suppose, do the philosophers think that
what proceeds from themselves is sure? For the voluntary assent to
a preceding demonstration is not supposition, but it is assent to
something sure. Who is more powerful than God? Now unbelief is the
feeble negative supposition of one opposed to Him; as incredulity is a
condition which admits faith with difficulty. Faith is the voluntary
supposition and anticipation of pre-comprehension. Expectation is an
opinion about the future, and expectation about other things is opinion
about uncertainty. Confidence is a strong judgment about a thing.
Wherefore we believe Him in whom we have confidence unto divine glory
and salvation. And we confide in Him, who is God alone, whom we know,
that those things nobly promised to us, and for this end benevolently
created and bestowed by Him on us, will not fail.
Benevolence is the wishing of good things to another for his sake. For
He needs nothing; and the beneficence and benignity which flow from
the Lord terminate in us, being divine benevolence, and benevolence
resulting in beneficence. And if to Abraham on his believing it was
counted for righteousness; and if we are the seed of Abraham, then
we must also believe through hearing. For we are Israelites, who are
convinced not by signs, but by hearing. Wherefore it is said, “Rejoice,
O barren, that barest not; break forth and cry, thou that didst not
travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than of
her who hath an husband.”[60] “Thou hast lived for the fence of the
people, thy children were blessed in the tents of their fathers.”[61]
And if the same mansions are promised by prophecy to us and to
the patriarchs, the God of both the covenants is shown to be one.
Accordingly it is added more clearly, “Thou hast inherited the covenant
of Israel,”[62] speaking to those called from among the nations,
that were once barren, being formerly destitute of this husband, who
is the Word,--desolate formerly,--of the bridegroom. Now the just
shall live by faith,“[63] which is according to the covenant and the
commandments; since these, which are two in name and time, given in
accordance with the [divine] economy--being in power one--the old and
the new, are dispensed through the Son by one God. As the apostle also
says in the Epistle to the Romans, “For therein is the righteousness
of God revealed from faith to faith,” teaching the one salvation which
from prophecy to the Gospel is perfected by one and the same Lord.
“This charge,” he says, “I commit to thee, son Timothy, according to
the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest
war the good warfare; holding faith, and a good conscience; which
some having put away, concerning faith have made shipwreck,”[64]
because they defiled by unbelief the conscience that comes from God.
Accordingly, faith may not, any more, with reason, be disparaged in
an offhand way, as simple and vulgar, appertaining to anybody. For,
if it were a mere human habit, as the Greeks supposed, it would have
been extinguished. But if it grow, and there be no place where it is
not; then I affirm, that faith, whether founded in love, or in fear,
as its disparagers assert, is something divine; which is neither rent
asunder by other mundane friendship, nor dissolved by the presence
of fear. For love, on account of its friendly alliance with faith,
makes men believers; and faith, which is the foundation of love, in
its turn introduces the doing of good; since also fear, the pædagogue
of the law, is believed to be fear by those, by whom it is believed.
For, if its existence is shown in its working, it is yet believed
when about to do and threatening, and when not working and present;
and being believed to exist, it does not itself generate faith, but
is by faith tested and proved trustworthy. Such a change, then, from
unbelief to faith--and to trust in hope and fear, is divine. And, in
truth, faith is discovered, by us, to be the first movement towards
salvation; after which fear, and hope, and repentance, advancing in
company with temperance and patience, lead us to love and knowledge.
Rightly, therefore, the Apostle Barnabas says, “From the portion I
have received I have done my diligence to send by little and little to
you; that along with your faith you may also have perfect knowledge.
Fear and patience are then helpers of your faith; and our allies are
long-suffering and temperance. These, then,” he says, “in what respects
the Lord, continuing in purity, there rejoice along with them, wisdom,
understanding, intelligence, knowledge.” The forementioned virtues
being, then, the elements of knowledge; the result is that faith is
more elementary, being as necessary to the Gnostic,[65] as respiration
to him that lives in this world is to life. And as without the four
elements it is not possible to live, so neither can knowledge be
attained without faith. It is then the support of truth.
CHAPTER VII.
THE UTILITY OF FEAR. OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.
Those, who denounce fear, assail the law; and if the law, plainly
also God, who gave the law. For these three elements are of necessity
presented in the subject on hand: the ruler, his administration, and
the ruled. If, then, according to hypothesis, they abolish the law;
then, by necessary consequence, each one who is led by lust, courting
pleasure, must neglect what is right and despise the Deity, and
fearlessly indulge in impiety and injustice together, having dashed
away from the truth.
Yea, say they, fear is an irrational aberration,[66] and perturbation
of mind. What sayest thou? And how can this definition be any longer
maintained, seeing the commandment is given me by the Word? But the
commandment forbids, hanging fear over the head of those who have
incurred[67] admonition for their discipline.
Fear is not then irrational. It is therefore rational. How could it be
otherwise, exhorting as it does, _Thou shalt not kill_, _Thou
shalt not commit adultery_, _Thou shalt not steal_, _Thou
shalt not bear false witness_? But if they will quibble about
the names, let the philosophers term the fear of the law, cautious
fear, (εὐλάβεια,) which is a shunning (ἔκκλισις) agreeable to reason.
Such Critolaus of Phasela not inaptly called fighters about names
(ὀνοματομάχοι). The commandment, then, has already appeared fair and
lovely even in the highest degree, when conceived under a change of
name. Cautious fear (εὐλάβεια) is therefore shown to be reasonable,
being the shunning of what hurts; from which arises repentance for
previous sins. “For the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom;
good understanding is to all that do it.”[68] He calls wisdom a doing,
which is the fear of the Lord paving the way for wisdom. But if the law
produces fear, the knowledge of the law is the beginning of wisdom;
and a man is not wise without law. Therefore those who reject the law
are unwise; and in consequence they are reckoned godless (ἄθεοι). Now
instruction is the beginning of wisdom. “But the ungodly despise wisdom
and instruction,”[69] saith the Scripture.
Let us see what terrors the law announces. If it is the things
which hold an intermediate place between virtue and vice, such as
poverty, disease, obscurity, and humble birth, and the like, these
things civil laws hold forth, and are praised for so doing. And
those of the Peripatetic school, who introduce three kinds of good
things, and think that their opposites are evil, this opinion suits.
But the law given to us enjoins us to shun what are in reality bad
things--adultery, uncleanness, pæderasty, ignorance, wickedness,
soul-disease, death (not that which severs the soul from the body,
but that which severs the soul from truth). For these are vices in
reality, and the workings that proceed from them are dreadful and
terrible. “For not unjustly,” say the divine oracles, “are the nets
spread for birds; for they who are accomplices in blood treasure up
evils to themselves.”[70] How, then, is the law still said to be not
good by certain heresies that clamorously appeal to the apostle,
who says, “For by the law is the knowledge of sin?”[71] To whom we
say, The law did not cause, but showed sin. For, enjoining what is
to be done, it reprehended what ought not to be done. And it is the
part of the good to teach what is salutary, and to point out what is
deleterious; and to counsel the practice of the one, and to command
to shun the other. Now the apostle, whom they do not comprehend, said
that by the law the knowledge of sin was manifested, not that from
it it derived its existence. And how can the law be not good, which
trains, which is given as the instructor (παιδαγωγός) to Christ,[72]
that being corrected by fear, in the way of discipline, in order to
the attainment of the perfection which is by Christ? “I will not,” it
is said, “the death of the sinner, as his repentance.”[73] Now the
commandment works repentance; inasmuch as it deters[74] from what ought
not to be done, and enjoins good deeds. By ignorance he means, in my
opinion, death. “And he that is near the Lord is full of stripes.”[75]
Plainly, he, that draws near to knowledge, has the benefit of perils,
fears, troubles, afflictions, by reason of his desire for the truth.
“For the son who is instructed turns out wise, and an intelligent
son is saved from burning. And an intelligent son will receive the
commandments.”[76] And Barnabas the apostle having said, “Woe to those
who are wise in their own conceits, clever in their own eyes,”[77]
added, “Let us become spiritual, a perfect temple to God; let us, as
far as in us lies, practise the fear of God, and strive to keep His
commands, that we may rejoice in His judgments.” Whence “the fear of
God” is divinely said to be the beginning of wisdom.[78]
CHAPTER VIII.
THE VAGARIES OF BASILIDES AND VALENTINUS AS TO
FEAR BEING THE CAUSE OF THINGS.
Here the followers of Basilides, interpreting this expression, say,
“that the Prince,[79] having heard the speech of the Spirit, who was
being ministered to, was struck with amazement both with the voice and
the vision, having had glad tidings beyond his hopes announced to him;
and that his amazement was called fear, which became the origin of
wisdom, which distinguishes classes, and discriminates, and perfects,
and restores. For not the world alone, but also the election, He that
is over all has set apart and sent forth.”
And Valentinus appears also in an epistle to have adopted such views.
For he writes in these very words: “And as[80] terror fell on the
angels at this creature, because he uttered things greater than
proceeded from his formation, by reason of the being in him who had
invisibly communicated a germ of the supernal essence, and who spoke
with free utterance; so also among the tribes of men in the world, the
works of men became terrors to those who made them,--as, for example,
images and statues. And the hands of all fashion things to bear the
name of God: for Adam formed into the name of man inspired the dread
attaching to the pre-existent man, as having his being in him; and they
were terror-stricken, and speedily marred the work.”
But there being but one First Cause, as will be shown afterwards, these
men will be shown to be inventors of chatterings and chirpings. But
since God deemed it advantageous, that from the law and the prophets,
men should receive a preparatory discipline by the Lord, the fear of
the Lord was called the beginning of wisdom, being given by the Lord,
through Moses, to the disobedient and hard of heart. For those whom
reason convinces not, fear tames; which also the Instructing Word,
foreseeing from the first, and purifying by each of these methods,
adapted the instrument suitably for piety. Consternation is, then, fear
at a strange apparition, or at an unlooked-for representation--such
as, for example, a message; while fear is an excessive wonderment on
account of something which arises or is. They do not then perceive
that they represent by means of amazement the God who is highest and
is extolled by them, as subject to perturbation and antecedent to
amazement as having been in ignorance. If indeed ignorance preceded
amazement; and if this amazement and fear, which is the beginning of
wisdom, is the fear of God, then in all likelihood ignorance as cause
preceded both the wisdom of God and all creative work, and not only
these, but restoration and even election itself. Whether, then, was it
ignorance of what was good or what was evil?
Well, if of good, why does it cease through amazement? And minister
and preaching and baptism are [in that case] superfluous to them. And
if of evil, how can what is bad be the cause of what is best? For had
not ignorance preceded, the minister would not have come down, nor
would have amazement seized on “the Prince,” as they say; nor would
he have attained to a beginning of wisdom from fear, in order to
discrimination between the elect and those that are mundane. And if the
fear of the pre-existent man made the angels conspire against their
own handiwork, under the idea that an invisible germ of the supernal
essence was lodged within that creation, or through unfounded suspicion
excited envy, which is incredible, the angels became murderers of the
creature which had been entrusted to them, as a child might be, they
being thus convicted of the grossest ignorance. Or suppose they were
influenced by being involved in foreknowledge. But they would not have
conspired against what they foreknew in the assault they made; nor
would they have been terror-struck at their own work, in consequence
of foreknowledge, on their perceiving the supernal germ. Or, finally,
suppose, trusting to their knowledge, they dared (but this also were
impossible for them), on learning the excellence that is in the
Pleroma, to conspire against man. Furthermore also they laid hands on
that which was according to the image, in which also is the archetype,
and which, along with the knowledge that remains, is indestructible.
To these, then, and certain others, especially the Marcionites, the
Scripture cries, though they listen not, “He that heareth me shall
rest with confidence in peace, and shall be tranquil, fearless of all
evil.”[81]
What, then, will they have the law to be? They will not call it evil,
but just; distinguishing what is good from what is just. But the Lord,
when He enjoins us to dread evil, does not exchange one evil for
another, but abolishes what is opposite by its opposite. Now evil is
the opposite of good, as what is just is of what is unjust. If, then,
that absence of fear, which the fear of the Lord produces, is called
the beginning of what is good,[82] fear is a good thing. And the fear
which proceeds from the law is not only just, but good, as it takes
away evil. But introducing absence of fear by means of fear, it does
not produce apathy by means of mental perturbation, but moderation
of feeling by discipline. When, then, we hear, “Honour the Lord, and
be strong: but fear not another besides Him,”[83] we understand it
to be meant fearing to sin, and following the commandments given by
God, which is the honour that cometh from God. For the fear of God
is Δέος [in Greek]. But if fear is perturbation of mind, as some
will have it that fear is perturbation of mind, yet all fear is not
perturbation. Superstition is indeed perturbation of mind; being the
fear of demons, that produce and are subject to the excitement of
passion. On the other hand, consequently, the fear of God, who is not
subject to perturbation, is free of perturbation. For it is not God,
but falling away from God, that the man is terrified for. And he who
fears this--that is, falling into evils--fears and dreads those evils.
And he who fears a fall, wishes himself to be free of corruption and
perturbation. “The wise man, fearing, avoids evil: but the foolish,
trusting, mixes himself with it,” says the Scripture; and again it
says, “In the fear of the Lord is the hope of strength.”[84]
CHAPTER IX.
THE CONNECTION OF THE CHRISTIAN VIRTUES.
Such a fear, accordingly, leads to repentance and hope. Now hope is the
expectation of good things, or an expectation sanguine of absent good;
and favourable circumstances are assumed in order to good hope, which
we have learned leads on to love. Now love turns out to be consent in
what pertains to reason, life, and manners, or in brief, fellowship in
life, or it is the intensity of friendship and of affection, with right
reason, in the enjoyment of associates. And an associate (ἑταῖρος) is
another self;[85] just as we call those, brethren, who are regenerated
by the same word. And akin to love is hospitality, being a congenial
art devoted to the treatment of strangers. And those are strangers,
to whom the things of the world are strange. For we regard as worldly
those, who hope in the earth and carnal lusts. “Be not conformed,”
says the apostle, “to this world: but be ye transformed in the renewal
of the mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and
perfect will of God.”[86] from ἕτερος.]
Hospitality, therefore, is occupied in what is useful for strangers;
and guests (ἐπίξενοι) are strangers (ξένοι); and friends are guests;
and brethren are friends. “Dear brother,”[87] says Homer.
Philanthropy, in order to which also, is natural affection, being a
loving treatment of men, and natural affection, which is a congenial
habit exercised in the love of friends or domestics, follow in the
train of love. And if the real man within us is the spiritual,
philanthropy is brotherly love to those who participate, in the same
spirit. Natural affection, on the other hand, is the preservation
of good-will, or of affection; and affection is its perfect
demonstration;[88] and to be beloved is to please in behaviour, by
drawing and attracting. And persons are brought to sameness by consent,
which is the knowledge of the good things that are enjoyed in common.
For community of sentiment (ὁμογνωμοσύνη) is harmony of opinions
(συμφωνία γνωμῶν). “Let your love be without dissimulation,” it is
said; “and abhorring what is evil, let us become attached to what is
good, to brotherly love,” and so on, down to “If it be possible, as
much as lieth in you, living peaceably with all men.” Then “be not
overcome of evil,” it is said, “but overcome evil with good.”[89] And
the same apostle owns that he bears witness to the Jews, “that they
have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For, being ignorant
of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they have
not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God.”[90] For they
did not know and do the will of the law; but what they supposed,
that they thought the law wished. And they did not believe the law
as prophesying, but the bare word; and they followed through fear,
not through disposition and faith. “For Christ is the end of the law
for righteousness,”[91] who was prophesied by the law to every one
that believeth. Whence it was said to them by Moses, “I will provoke
you to jealousy by them that are not a people; and I will anger you
by a foolish nation, that is, by one that has become disposed to
obedience.”[92] And by Isaiah it is said, “I was found of them that
sought me not; I was made manifest to them that inquired not after
me,”[93]--manifestly previous to the coming of the Lord; after which
to Israel, the things prophesied, are now appropriately spoken: “I have
stretched out my hands all the day long to a disobedient and gainsaying
people.” Do you see the cause of the calling from among the nations,
clearly declared, by the prophet, to be the disobedience and gainsaying
of the people? Then the goodness of God is shown also in their case.
For the apostle says, “But through their transgression salvation
is come to the Gentiles, to provoke them to jealousy,”[94] and to
willingness to repent. And the Shepherd, speaking plainly of those
who had fallen asleep, recognises certain righteous among Gentiles and
Jews, not only before the appearance of Christ, but before the law,
in virtue of acceptance before God,--as Abel, as Noah, as any other
righteous man. He says accordingly, “that the apostles and teachers,
who had preached the name of the Son of God, and had fallen asleep, in
power and by faith, preached to those that had fallen asleep before.”
Then he subjoins: “And they gave them the seal of preaching. They
descended, therefore, with them into the water, and again ascended. But
these descended alive, and again ascended alive. But those, who had
fallen asleep before, descended dead, but ascended alive. By these,
therefore, they were made alive, and knew the name of the Son of God.
Wherefore also they ascended with them, and fitted into the structure
of the tower, and unhewn were built up together: they fell asleep in
righteousness and in great purity, but wanted only this seal.”[95] “For
when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things of
the law, these having not the law, are a law unto themselves,”[96]
according to the apostle.
As, then, the virtues follow one another, why need I say what has
been demonstrated already, that faith hopes through repentance, and
fear through faith; and patience and practice in these along with
learning terminate in love, which is perfected by knowledge? But that
is necessarily to be noticed, that the Divine alone is to be regarded
as naturally wise. Therefore also wisdom, which has taught the truth,
is the power of God; and in it the perfection of knowledge is embraced.
The philosopher loves and likes the truth, being now considered as a
friend, on account of his love, from his being a true servant. The
beginning of knowledge is wondering at objects, as Plato says in his
_Theætetus_; and Matthew exhorting in the _Traditions_, says, “Wonder
at what is before you;” laying this down first as the foundation of
further knowledge. So also in the Gospel to the Hebrews it is written,
“He that wonders shall reign, and he that has reigned shall rest.”
It is impossible, therefore, for an ignorant man, while he remains
ignorant, to philosophize, not having apprehended the idea of wisdom;
since philosophy is an effort to grasp that which truly is, and the
studies that conduce thereto. And it is not the rendering of one[97]
accomplished in good habits of conduct, but the knowing how we are to
use and act and labour, according as one is assimilated to God. I mean
God the Saviour, by serving the God of the universe through the High
Priest, the Word, by whom what is in truth good and right is beheld.
Piety is conduct suitable and corresponding to God.
CHAPTER X.
TO WHAT THE PHILOSOPHER APPLIES HIMSELF.
These three things, therefore, our philosopher attaches himself to:
first, speculation; second, the performance of the precepts; third, the
forming of good men;--which, concurring, form the Gnostic. Whichever of
these is wanting, the elements of knowledge limp. Whence the Scripture
divinely says, “And the Lord spake to Moses, saying, Speak to the
children of Israel, and thou shalt say to them, I am the Lord your
God. According to the customs of the land of Egypt, in which ye have
dwelt, ye shall not do; and according to the customs of Canaan, into
which I bring you, ye shall not do; and in their usages ye shall not
walk. Ye shall perform my judgments, and keep my precepts, and walk in
them: I am the Lord your God. And ye shall keep all my commandments,
and do them. He that doeth them shall live in them. I am the Lord your
God.”[98] Whether, then, Egypt and the land of Canaan be the symbol of
the world and of deceit, or of sufferings and afflictions; the oracle
shows us what must be abstained from, and what, being divine and not
worldly, must be observed. And when it is said, “The man that doeth
them shall live in them,”[99] it declares both the correction of the
Hebrews themselves, and the training and advancement of us who are
nigh:[100] it declares at once their life and ours. For “those who
were dead in sins are quickened together with Christ,”[101] by our
covenant. For Scripture, by the frequent reiteration of the expression,
“I am the Lord your God,” shames in such a way as most powerfully to
dissuade, by teaching us to follow God who gave the commandments, and
gently admonishes us to seek God and endeavour to know Him as far
as possible; which is the highest speculation, that which scans the
greatest mysteries, the real knowledge, that which becomes irrefragable
by reason. This alone is the knowledge of wisdom, from which rectitude
of conduct is never disjoined.
CHAPTER XI.
THE KNOWLEDGE WHICH COMES THROUGH FAITH THE
SUREST OF ALL.
But the knowledge of those who think themselves wise, whether the
barbarian sects or the philosophers among the Greeks, according to
the apostle, “puffeth up.”[102] But that knowledge, which is the
scientific demonstration of what is delivered according to the true
philosophy, is founded on faith. Now, we may say that it is that
process of reason which, from what is admitted, procures faith in what
is disputed. Now, faith being twofold--the faith of knowledge and that
of opinion--nothing prevents us from calling demonstration twofold, the
one resting on knowledge, the other on opinion; since also knowledge
and foreknowledge are designated as twofold, that which is essentially
accurate, that which is defective. And is not the demonstration, which
we possess, that alone which is true, as being supplied out of the
divine Scriptures, the sacred writings, and out of the “God-taught
wisdom,” according to the apostle? Learning, then, is also obedience
to the commandments, which is faith in God. And faith is a power of
God, being the strength of the truth. For example, it is said, “If ye
have faith as a grain of mustard, ye shall remove the mountain.”[103]
And again, “According to thy faith let it be to thee.”[104] And one
is cured, receiving healing by faith; and the dead is raised up in
consequence of the power of one believing that he would be raised. The
demonstration, however, which rests on opinion is human, and is the
result of rhetorical arguments or dialectic syllogisms. For the highest
demonstration, to which we have alluded, produces intelligent faith by
the adducing and opening up of the Scriptures to the souls of those
who desire to learn; the result of which is knowledge (_gnosis_).
For if what is adduced in order to prove the point at issue is assumed
to be true, as being divine and prophetic, manifestly the conclusion
arrived at by inference from it will consequently be inferred truly;
and the legitimate result of the demonstration will be knowledge. When,
then, the memorial of the celestial and divine food was commanded to be
consecrated in the golden pot, it was said, “The omer was the tenth of
the three measures.”[105] For in ourselves, by the three measures are
indicated three criteria; sensation of objects of sense, speech,--of
spoken names and words, and the mind,--of intellectual objects. The
Gnostic, therefore, will abstain from errors in speech, and thought,
and sensation, and action, having heard “that he that looks so as to
lust hath committed adultery;”[106] and reflecting that “blessed are
the pure in heart, for they shall see God;”[107] and knowing this,
“that not what enters into the mouth defileth, but that it is what
cometh forth by the mouth that defileth the man. For out of the heart
proceed thoughts.”[108] This, as I think, is the true and just measure
according to God, by which things capable of measurement are measured,
the decad which is comprehensive of man; which summarily the three
above-mentioned measures pointed out. There are body and soul, the
five senses, speech, the power of reproduction--the intellectual or
the spiritual faculty, or whatever you choose to call it. And we must,
in a word, ascending above all the others, stop at the mind; as also
certainly in the universe overleaping the nine divisions, the first
consisting of the four elements put in one place for equal interchange;
and then the seven wandering stars and the one that wanders not,
the ninth, to the perfect number, which is above the nine,[109] and
the tenth division, we must reach to the knowledge of God, to speak
briefly, desiring the Maker after the creation. Wherefore the tithes
both of the ephah and of the sacrifices were presented to God; and the
paschal feast began with the tenth day, being the transition from all
trouble, and from all objects of sense.
The Gnostic is therefore fixed by faith; but the man who thinks
himself wise touches not what pertains to the truth, moved as he is by
unstable and wavering impulses. It is therefore reasonably written,
“Cain went forth from the face of God, and dwelt in the land of Naid,
over against Eden.” Now Naid is interpreted _commotion_, and Eden
_delight_; and Faith, and Knowledge, and Peace are delight, from
which he that has disobeyed is cast out. But he that is wise in his
own eyes will not so much as listen to the beginning of the divine
commandments; but, as if his own teacher, throwing off the reins,
plunges voluntarily into a billowy commotion, sinking down to mortal
and created things from the uncreated knowledge, holding various
opinions at various times. “Those who have no guidance fall like
leaves.”[110]
Reason, the governing principle, remaining unmoved and guiding the
soul, is called its pilot. For access to the Immutable is obtained by
a truly immutable means. Thus Abraham was stationed before the Lord,
and approaching spoke.[111] And to Moses it is said, “But do thou
stand there with me.”[112] And the followers of Simon wish to be
assimilated in manners to the standing form which they adore. Faith,
therefore, and the knowledge of the truth, render the soul, which makes
them its choice, always uniform and equable. For congenial to the man
of falsehood is shifting, and change, and turning away, as to the
Gnostic are calmness, and rest, and peace. As, then, philosophy has
been brought into evil repute by pride and self-conceit, so also gnosis
by false gnosis called by the same name; of which the apostle writing
says, “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding
the profane and vain babblings and oppositions of science (gnosis)
falsely so called; which some professing, have erred concerning the
faith.”[113]
Convicted by this utterance, the heretics reject the Epistles to
Timothy. Well, then, if the Lord is the truth, and wisdom, and power of
God, as in truth He is, it is shown that the real Gnostic is he that
knows Him, and His Father by Him. For his sentiments are the same with
him who said, “The lips of the righteous know high things.”[114]
CHAPTER XII.
TWOFOLD FAITH.
Faith as also Time being double, we shall find virtues in pairs both
dwelling together. For memory is related to past time, hope to future.
We believe that what is past did, and that what is future will take
place. And, on the other hand, we love, persuaded by faith that the
past was as it was, and by hope expecting the future. For in everything
love attends the Gnostic, who knows one God. “And, behold, all things
which He created were very good.”[115] He both knows and admires.
Godliness adds length of life; and the fear of the Lord adds days. As,
then, the days are a portion of life in its progress, so also fear is
the beginning of love, becoming by development faith, then love. But
it is not as I fear and hate a wild beast (since fear is twofold) that
I fear the father, whom I fear and love at once. Again, fearing lest
I be punished, I love myself in assuming fear. He who fears to offend
his father, loves himself. Blessed then is he who is found possessed of
faith, being, as he is, composed of love and fear. And faith is power
in order to salvation, and strength to eternal life. Again, prophecy
is foreknowledge; and knowledge the understanding of prophecy; being
the knowledge of those things known before by the Lord who reveals all
things.
The knowledge, then, of those things which have been predicted shows
a threefold result,--either one that has happened long ago, or
exists now, or about to be. Then the extremes[116] either of what is
accomplished or of what is hoped for fall under faith; and the present
action furnishes persuasive arguments for the confirmation of both the
extremes. For if, prophecy being one, one part is accomplishing and
another is fulfilled; hence the truth, both what is hoped for and what
is past is confirmed. For it was first present; then it became past to
us; so that the belief of what is past is the apprehension of a past
event, and the hope which is future the apprehension of a future event.
And not only the Platonists, but the Stoics, say that assent is in
our own power. All opinion then, and judgment, and supposition, and
knowledge, by which we live and have perpetual intercourse with the
human race, is an assent; which is nothing else than faith. And
unbelief being defection from faith, shows both assent and faith to be
possessed of power; for non-existence cannot be called privation. And
if you consider the truth, you will find man naturally misled so as to
give assent to what is false, though possessing the resources necessary
for belief in the truth. “The virtue, then, that encloses the church
in its grasp,” as the Shepherd says,[117] “is Faith, by which the
elect of God are saved; and that which acts the man is Self-restraint.
And these are followed by Simplicity, Knowledge, Innocence, Decorum,
Love,” and all these are the daughters of Faith. And again, “Faith
leads the way, fear upbuilds, and love perfects.” Accordingly he[118]
says, the Lord is to be feared in order to edification, but not the
devil to destruction. And again, the works of the Lord--that is, His
commandments--are to be loved and done; but the works of the devil are
to be dreaded and not done. For the fear of God trains and restores to
love; but the fear of the works of the devil has hatred dwelling along
with it. The same also says “that repentance is high intelligence. For
he that repents of what he did, no longer does or says as he did. But
by torturing himself for his sins, he benefits his soul. Forgiveness of
sins is therefore different from repentance; but both show what is in
our power.”
CHAPTER XIII.
ON FIRST AND SECOND REPENTANCE.
He, then, who has received the forgiveness of sins ought to sin no
more. For, in addition to the first and only repentance from sins (this
is from the previous sins in the first and heathen life--I mean that in
ignorance), there is forthwith proposed to those who have been called,
the repentance which cleanses the seat of the soul from transgressions,
that faith may be established. And the Lord, knowing the heart, and
foreknowing the future, foresaw both the fickleness of man and the
craft and subtlety of the devil from the first, from the beginning;
how that, envying man for the forgiveness of sins, he would present
to the servants of God certain causes of sins; skilfully working
mischief, that they might fall together with himself. Accordingly,
being very merciful, He has vouchsafed, in the case of those who,
though in faith, fall into any transgression, a second repentance; so
that should any one be tempted after his calling, overcome by force
and fraud, he may receive still a repentance not to be repented of.
“For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of
the truth, there remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins, but a certain
fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall
devour the adversaries.”[119] But continual and successive repentings
for sins differ nothing from the case of those who have not believed
at all, except only in their consciousness that they do sin. And I
know not which of the two is worst, whether the case of a man who
sins knowingly, or of one who, after having repented of his sins,
transgresses again. For in the process of proof sin appears on each
side,--the sin which in its commission is condemned by the worker of
the iniquity, and that of the man who, foreseeing what is about to be
done, yet puts his hand to it as a wickedness. And he who perchance
gratifies himself in anger and pleasure, gratifies himself in he knows
what; and he who, repenting of that in which he gratified himself,
by rushing again into pleasure, is near neighbour to him who has
sinned wilfully at first. For one, who does again that of which he has
repented, and condemning what he does, performs it willingly.
He, then, who from among the Gentiles and from that old life has
betaken himself to faith, has obtained forgiveness of sins once. But
he who has sinned after this, on his repentance, though he obtain
pardon, ought to fear, as one no longer washed to the forgiveness of
sins. For not only must the idols which he formerly held as gods, but
the works also of his former life, be abandoned by him who has been
“born again, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh,”[120] but in
the Spirit; which consists in repenting by not giving way to the same
fault. For frequent repentance and readiness to change easily from
want of training, is the practice of sin again. The frequent asking
of forgiveness, then, for those things in which we often transgress,
is the semblance of repentance, not repentance itself. “But the
righteousness of the blameless cuts straight paths,”[121] says the
Scripture. And again, “The righteousness of the innocent will make his
way right.”[122] Nay, “as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord
pitieth them that fear Him.”[123] David writes, “They who sow,” then,
“in tears, shall reap in joy;”[124] those, namely, who confess in
penitence. “For blessed are all those that fear the Lord.”[125] You
see the corresponding blessing in the gospel. “Fear not,” it is said,
“when a man is enriched, and when the glory of his house is increased:
because when he dieth he shall leave all, and his glory shall not
descend after him.”[126] “But I in Thy mercy will enter into Thy house.
I will worship toward Thy holy temple, in Thy fear: Lord, lead me in
Thy righteousness.”[127] Appetite is then the movement of the mind to
or from something.[128] Passion is an excessive appetite exceeding the
measures of reason, or appetite unbridled and disobedient to the word.
Passions, then, are a perturbation of the soul contrary to nature, in
disobedience to reason. But revolt and distraction and disobedience are
in our own power, as obedience is in our power. Wherefore voluntary
actions are judged. But should one examine each one of the passions, he
will find them irrational impulses.
CHAPTER XIV.
HOW A THING MAY BE INVOLUNTARY.
What is involuntary is not matter for judgment. But this is
twofold,--what is done in ignorance, and what is done through
necessity. For how will you judge concerning those who are said to sin
in involuntary modes? For either one knew not himself, as Cleomenes
and Athamas, who were mad; or the thing which he does, as Æschylus,
who divulged the mysteries on the stage, who, being tried in the
Areopagus, was absolved on his showing that he had not been initiated.
Or one knows not what is done, as he who has let off his antagonist,
and slain his domestic instead of his enemy; or that by which it is
done, as he who, in exercising with spears having buttons on them, has
killed some one in consequence of the spear throwing off the button;
or knows not the manner how, as he who has killed his antagonist in
the stadium, for it was not for his death but for victory that he
contended; or knows not the reason why it is done, as the physician
gave a salutary antidote and killed, for it was not for this purpose
that he gave it, but to save. The law at that time punished him who had
killed involuntarily, as _e.g._ him who was subject involuntarily
to gonorrhœa, but not equally with him who did so voluntarily. Although
he also shall be punished as for a voluntary action, if one transfer
the affection to the truth. For, in reality, he that cannot contain
the generative word is to be punished; for this is an irrational
passion of the soul approaching garrulity. “The faithful man chooses
to conceal things in his spirit.”[129] Things, then, that depend on
choice are subjects for judgment. “For the Lord searcheth the hearts
and reins.”[130] “And he that looketh so as to lust”[131] is judged.
Wherefore it is said, “Thou shalt not lust.”[132] And “this people
honoureth me with their lips,” it is said, “but their heart is far from
me.”[133] For God has respect to the very thought, since Lot’s wife,
who had merely voluntarily turned towards worldly wickedness, He left a
senseless mass, rendering her a pillar of salt, and fixed her so that
she advanced no further, not as a stupid and useless image, but to
season and salt him who has the power of spiritual perception.
CHAPTER XV.
ON THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF VOLUNTARY ACTIONS, AND
THE SINS THENCE PROCEEDING.
What is voluntary is either what is by desire, or what is by
choice, or what is of intention. Closely allied to each other are
these things--sin, mistake, crime. It is sin, for example, to live
luxuriously and licentiously; a misfortune, to wound one’s friend in
ignorance, taking him for an enemy; and crime, to violate graves or
commit sacrilege. Sinning arises from being unable to determine what
ought to be done, or being unable to do it; as doubtless one falls
into a ditch either through not knowing, or through inability to leap
across through feebleness of body. But application to the training of
ourselves, and subjection to the commandments, is in our own power;
with which if we will have nothing to do, by abandoning ourselves
wholly to lust, we shall sin, nay rather, wrong our own soul. For the
noted Laius says in the tragedy:
“None of these things of which you admonish me have escaped me;
But notwithstanding that I am in my senses, Nature compels me;”
_i.e._ his abandoning himself to passion. Medea, too, herself
cries on the stage:
“And I am aware what evils I am to perpetrate,
But passion is stronger than my resolutions.”[134]
Further, not even Ajax is silent; but, when about to kill himself,
cries:
“No pain gnaws the soul of a free man like dishonour.
Thus do I suffer; and the deep stain of calamity
Ever stirs me from the depths, agitated
By the bitter stings of rage.”[135]
Anger made these the subjects of tragedy, and lust made ten thousand
others--Phædra, Anthia, Eriphyle,
“Who took the precious gold for her dear husband.”
For another play represents Thrasonides of the comic drama as saying:
“A worthless wench made me her slave.”
Mistake is a sin contrary to calculation; and voluntary sin is crime
(ἀδικία); and crime is voluntary wickedness. Sin, then, is on my part
voluntary. Wherefore says the apostle, “Sin shall not have dominion
over you; for ye are not under the law, but under grace.”[136]
Addressing those who have believed, he says, “For by His stripes we
were healed.”[137] Mistake is the involuntary action of another towards
me, while a crime (ἀδικία) alone is voluntary, whether my act or
another’s. These differences of sins are alluded to by the Psalmist,
when he calls those blessed whose iniquities (ἀνομίας) God hath blotted
out, and whose sins (ἁμαρτίας) He hath covered. Others He does not
impute, and the rest He forgives. For it is written, “Blessed are they
whose iniquities are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the
man to whom the Lord will not impute sin, and in whose mouth there is
no fraud.”[138] This blessedness came on those who had been chosen
by God through Jesus Christ our Lord. For “love hides the multitude
of sins.”[139] And they are blotted out by Him “who desireth the
repentance rather than the death of a sinner.”[140] And those are not
reckoned that are not the effect of choice; “for he who has lusted has
already committed adultery,”[141] it is said. And the illuminating
Word forgives sins: “And in that time, saith the Lord, they shall seek
for the iniquity of Israel, and it shall not exist; and the sins of
Judah, and they shall not be found.”[142] “For who is like me? and
who shall stand before my face?”[143] You see the one God declared
good, rendering according to desert, and forgiving sins. John, too,
manifestly teaches the differences of sins, in his larger epistle, in
these words: “If any man see his brother sin a sin that is not unto
death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life: for these that sin not
unto death,” he says. For “there is a sin unto death: I do not say that
one is to pray for it. All unrighteousness is sin; and there is a sin
not unto death.”[144]
David, too, and Moses before David, show the knowledge of the three
precepts in the following words: “Blessed is the man who walks not
in the counsel of the ungodly;” as the fishes go down to the depths
in darkness; for those which have not scales, which Moses prohibits
touching, feed at the bottom of the sea. “Nor standeth in the way of
sinners,” as those who, while appearing to fear the Lord, commit sin,
like the sow, for when hungry it cries, and when full knows not its
owner. “Nor sitteth in the chair of pestilences,” as birds ready for
prey. And Moses enjoined not to eat the sow, nor the eagle, nor the
hawk, nor the raven, nor any fish without scales. So far Barnabas.[145]
And I heard one skilled in such matters say that “the counsel of
the ungodly” was the heathen, and “the way of sinners” the Jewish
persuasion, and explain “the chair of pestilence” of heresies. And
another said, with more propriety, that the first blessing was assigned
to those who had not followed wicked sentiments which revolt from God;
the second to those who do not remain in the wide and broad road,
whether they be those who have been brought up in the law, or Gentiles
who have repented. And “the chair of pestilences” will be the theatres
and tribunals, or rather the compliance with wicked and deadly powers,
and complicity with their deeds. “But his delight is in the law of the
Lord.”[146] Peter in his _Preaching_ called the Lord, Law and
Logos. The legislator seems to teach differently the interpretation of
the three forms of sin--understanding by the mute fishes sins of word,
for there are times in which _silence is better than speech, for
silence has a safe recompense_; sins of deed, by the rapacious and
carnivorous birds. The sow delights in dirt and dung; and we ought not
to have “a conscience” that is “defiled.”[147]
Justly, therefore, the prophet says, “The ungodly are not so: but
as the chaff which the wind driveth away from the face of the
earth. Wherefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment”[148]
(being already condemned, for “he that believeth not is condemned
already”[149]), “nor sinners in the counsel of the righteous,”
inasmuch as they are already condemned, so as not to be united to those
that have lived without stumbling. “For the Lord knoweth the way of the
righteous; and the way of the ungodly shall perish.”[150]
Again, the Lord clearly shows sins and transgressions to be in our own
power, by prescribing modes of cure corresponding to the maladies;
showing His wish that we should be corrected by the shepherds, in
Ezekiel; blaming, I am of opinion, some of them for not keeping the
commandments. “That which was enfeebled ye have not strengthened,” and
so forth, down to, “and there was none to search out or turn away.”[151]
For “great is the joy before the Father when one sinner is saved,”[152]
saith the Lord. So Abraham was much to be praised, because “he walked
as the Lord spake to him.” Drawing from this instance, one of the wise
men among the Greeks uttered the maxim, “Follow God.”[153] “The godly,”
says Esaias, “framed wise counsels.”[154] Now counsel is seeking for
the right way of acting in present circumstances, and good counsel
is wisdom in our counsels. And what? Does not God, after the pardon
bestowed on Cain, suitably not long after introduce Enoch, who had
repented?[155] showing that it is the nature of repentance to produce
pardon; but pardon does not consist in remission, but in remedy. An
instance of the same is the making of the calf by the people before
Aaron. Thence one of the wise men among the Greeks uttered the maxim,
“Pardon is better than punishment;” as also, “Become surety, and
mischief is at hand,” is derived from the utterance of Solomon which
says, “My son, if thou become surety for thy friend, thou wilt give
thine hand to thy enemy; for a man’s own lips are a strong snare to
him, and he is taken in the words of his own mouth.”[156] And the
saying, “Know thyself,” has been taken rather more mystically from
this, “Thou hast seen thy brother, thou hast seen thy God.”[157] Thus
also, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and thy
neighbour as thyself;” for it is said, “On these commandments the law
and the prophets hang and are suspended.”[158] With these also agree
the following: “These things have I spoken to you, that my joy might
be fulfilled: and this is my commandment, That ye love one another,
as I have loved you.”[159] “For the Lord is merciful and pitiful;
and gracious[160] is the Lord to all.”[161] “Know thyself” is more
clearly and often expressed by Moses, when he enjoins, “Take heed to
thyself.”[162] “By alms then, and acts of faith, sins are purged.”[163]
“And by the fear of the Lord each one departs from evil.”[164] And the
fear of the Lord is instruction and wisdom.“[165]
CHAPTER XVI.
HOW WE ARE TO EXPLAIN THE PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE
WHICH ASCRIBE TO GOD HUMAN AFFECTIONS.
Here again arise the cavillers, who say that joy and pain are
passions of the soul: for they define joy as a rational elevation and
exultation, as rejoicing on account of what is good; and pity as pain
for one who suffers undeservedly; and that such affections are moods
and passions of the soul. But we, as would appear, do not cease in such
matters to understand the Scriptures carnally; and starting from our
own affections, interpret the will of the impassible Deity similarly to
our perturbations; and as we are capable of hearing; so, supposing the
same to be the case with the Omnipotent, err impiously. For the Divine
Being cannot be declared as it exists: but as we who are fettered in
the flesh were able to listen, so the prophets spake to us; the Lord
savingly accommodating Himself to the weakness of men. Since, then,
it is the will of God that he, who is obedient to the commands and
repents of his sins should be saved, and we rejoice on account of our
salvation, the Lord, speaking by the prophets, appropriated our joy to
Himself; as speaking lovingly in the Gospel He says, “I was hungry, and
ye gave me to eat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me to drink. For inasmuch
as ye did it to one of the least of these, ye did it to me.”[166] As,
then, He is nourished, though not personally, by the nourishing of one
whom He wishes nourished; so He rejoices, without suffering change, by
reason of him who has repented being in joy, as He wished. And since
God pities richly, being good, and giving commands by the law and the
prophets, and more nearly still by the appearance of his Son, saving
and pitying, as was said, those who have found mercy; and properly the
greater pities the less; and a man cannot be greater than man, being by
nature man; but God in everything is greater than man; if, then, the
greater pities the less, it is God alone that will pity us. For a man
is made to communicate by righteousness, and bestows what he received
from God, in consequence of his natural benevolence and relation, and
the commands which he obeys. But God has no natural relation to us, as
the authors of the heresies will have it; neither on the supposition
of His having made us of nothing, nor on that of having formed us
from matter; since the former did not exist at all, and the latter is
totally distinct from God, unless we shall dare to say that we are a
part of Him, and of the same essence as God. And I know not how one,
who knows God, can bear to hear this when he looks to our life, and
sees in what evils we are involved. For thus it would turn out, which
it were impiety to utter, that God sinned in [certain] portions, if
the portions are parts of the whole and complementary of the whole;
and if not complementary, neither can they be parts. But God being by
nature rich in pity, in consequence of His own goodness, cares for us,
though neither portions of Himself, nor by nature His children. And
this is the greatest proof of the goodness of God: that such being our
relation to Him, and being by nature wholly estranged, He nevertheless
cares for us. For the affection in animals to their progeny is natural,
and the friendship of kindred minds is the result of intimacy. But the
mercy of God is rich toward us, who are in no respect related to Him;
I say either in our essence or nature, or in the peculiar energy of
our essence, but only in our being the work of His will. And him who
willingly, with discipline and teaching, accepts the knowledge of the
truth, He calls to adoption, which is the greatest advancement of all.
“Transgressions catch a man; and in the cords of his own sins each one
is bound.”[167] And God is without blame. And in reality, “blessed is
the man who feareth alway through piety.”[168]
CHAPTER XVII.
ON THE VARIOUS KINDS OF KNOWLEDGE.
As, then, Knowledge (ἐπιστημη) is an intellectual state, from which
results the act of knowing, and becomes apprehension irrefragable
by reason; so also ignorance is a receding impression, which can be
dislodged by reason. And that which is overthrown as well as that
which is elaborated by reason, is in our power. Akin to Knowledge
is _experience_, cognition (εἴδησις), Comprehension (σύνεσις),
perception, and Science. Cognition (εἴδησις) is the knowledge of
universals by species; and Experience is comprehensive knowledge, which
investigates the nature of each thing. Perception (νόησις) is the
knowledge of intellectual objects; and Comprehension (σύνεσις) is the
knowledge of what is compared, or a comparison that cannot be annulled,
or the faculty of comparing the objects with which Judgment and
Knowledge are occupied, both of one and each and all that goes to make
up one reason. And Science (γνῶσις) is the knowledge of the thing in
itself, or the knowledge which harmonizes with what takes place. Truth
is the knowledge of the true; and the mental habit of truth is the
knowledge of the things which are true. Now knowledge is constituted by
the reason, and cannot be overthrown by another reason.[169] What we
do not, we do not either from not being able, or not being willing--or
both. Accordingly we don’t fly, since we neither can nor wish; we do
not swim at present, for example, since we can indeed, but do not
choose; and we are not as the Lord, since we wish, but cannot be: “for
no disciple is above his master, and it is sufficient if we be as the
master:”[170] not in essence (for it is impossible for that, which is
by adoption, to be equal in substance to that, which is by nature); but
[we are as Him] only in our[171] having been made immortal, and our
being conversant with the contemplation of realities, and beholding the
Father through what belongs to Him.
Therefore volition takes the precedence of all; for the intellectual
powers are ministers of the Will. “Will,” it is said, “and thou shalt
be able.”[172] And in the Gnostic, Will, Judgment, and Exertion are
identical. For if the determinations are the same, the opinions and
judgments will be the same too; so that both his words, and life, and
conduct, are conformable to rule. “And a right heart seeketh knowledge,
and heareth it.” “God taught me wisdom, and I knew the knowledge of the
holy.”[173]
CHAPTER XVIII.
THE MOSAIC LAW THE FOUNTAIN OF ALL ETHICS, AND THE
SOURCE FROM WHICH THE GREEKS DREW THEIRS.
It is then clear also that all the other virtues, delineated in Moses,
supplied the Greeks with the rudiments of the whole department of
morals. I mean valour, and temperance, and wisdom, and justice, and
endurance, and patience, and decorum, and self-restraint; and in
addition to these, piety.
But it is clear to every one that piety, which teaches to worship and
honour, is the highest and oldest cause; and the law itself exhibits
justice, and teaches wisdom, by abstinence from sensible images, and
by inviting to the Maker and Father of the universe. And from this
sentiment, as from a fountain, all intelligence increases. “For the
sacrifices of the wicked are abomination to the Lord; but the prayers
of the upright are acceptable before Him,”[174] since “righteousness is
more acceptable before God than sacrifice.” Such also as the following
we find in Isaiah: “To what purpose to me is the multitude of your
sacrifices? saith the Lord;” and the whole section.[175] “Break every
bond of wickedness; for this is the sacrifice that is acceptable to
the Lord, a contrite heart that seeks its Maker.”[176] “Deceitful
balances are abomination before God; but a just balance is acceptable
to Him.”[177] Thence Pythagoras exhorts “not to step over the balance;”
and the profession of heresies is called deceitful righteousness; and
“the tongue of the unjust shall be destroyed, but the mouth of the
righteous droppeth wisdom.”[178] “For they call the wise and prudent
worthless.”[179] But it were tedious to adduce testimonies respecting
these virtues, since the whole Scripture celebrates them. Since, then,
they define manliness to be knowledge[180] of things formidable,
and not formidable, and what is intermediate; and temperance to be a
state of mind which by choosing and avoiding preserves the judgments
of wisdom; and conjoined with manliness is patience, which is called
endurance, the knowledge of what is bearable and what is unbearable;
and magnanimity is the knowledge which rises superior to circumstances.
With temperance also is conjoined caution, which is avoidance in
accordance with reason. And observance of the commandments, which
is the innoxious keeping of them, is the attainment of a secure
life. And there is no endurance without manliness, nor the exercise
of self-restraint without temperance. And these virtues follow one
another; and with whom are the sequences of the virtues, with him
is also salvation, which is the keeping of the state of well-being.
Rightly, therefore, in treating of these virtues, we shall inquire into
them all; for he that has one virtue gnostically, by reason of their
accompanying each other, has them all. Self-restraint is that quality
which does not overstep what appears in accordance with right reason.
He exercises self-restraint, who curbs the impulses that are contrary
to right reason, or curbs himself so as not to indulge in desires
contrary to right reason. Temperance, too, is not without manliness;
since from the commandments spring both wisdom, which follows God
who enjoins, and that which imitates the divine character, namely
righteousness; in virtue of which, in the exercise of self-restraint,
we address ourselves in purity to piety and the course of conduct
thence resulting, in conformity with God; being assimilated to the
Lord as far as is possible for us beings mortal in nature. And this
is being just and holy with wisdom; for the Divinity needs nothing
and suffers nothing; whence it is not, strictly speaking, capable of
self-restraint, for it is never subjected to perturbation, over which
to exercise control; while our nature, being capable of perturbation,
needs self-constraint, by which disciplining itself to the need of
little, it endeavours to approximate in character to the divine
nature. For the good man, standing as the boundary between an immortal
and a mortal nature, has few needs; having wants in consequence of his
body, and his birth itself, but taught by rational self-control to want
few things.
What reason is there in the law’s prohibiting a man from “wearing
woman’s clothing?”[181] Is it not that it would have us to be manly,
and to be effeminate neither in person and actions, nor in thought
and word? For it would have the man, that devotes himself to the
truth, to be masculine both in acts of endurance and patience, in
life, conduct, word, and discipline by night and by day; even if the
necessity were to occur, of witnessing by the shedding of his blood.
Again, it is said, “If any one who has newly built a house, and has not
previously inhabited it; or cultivated a newly-planted vine, and not
yet partaken of the fruit; or betrothed a virgin, and not yet married
her;”[182]--such the humane law orders to be relieved from military
service: from military reasons in the first place, lest, bent on
their desires, they turn out sluggish in war; for it is those who are
untrammelled by passion that boldly encounter perils; and from motives
of humanity, since, in view of the uncertainties of war, the law
reckoned it not right that one should not enjoy his own labours, and
another should, without bestowing pains, receive what belonged to those
who had laboured. The law seems also to point out manliness of soul,
by enacting that he who had planted should reap the fruit, and he that
built should inhabit, and he that had betrothed should marry: for it
is not vain hopes which it provides for those who labour; according to
the gnostic word: “For the hope of a good man dead or living does not
perish,”[183] says Wisdom; “I love them that love me; and they who seek
me shall find peace,”[184] and so forth. What then? Did not the women
of the Midianites, by their beauty, seduce from wisdom into impiety,
through licentiousness, the Hebrews when making war against them? For,
having seduced them from a grave mode of life, and by their beauty
ensnared them in wanton delights, they made them insane upon idol
sacrifices and strange women; and overcome by women and by pleasure at
once, they revolted from God, and revolted from the law. And the whole
people was within a little of falling under the power of the enemy
through female stratagem, until, when they were in peril, fear by its
admonitions pulled them back. Then the survivors, valiantly undertaking
the struggle for piety, got the upper hand of their foes. “The
beginning, then, of wisdom is piety, and the knowledge of holy things
is understanding; and to know the law is the characteristic of a good
understanding.”[185] Those, then, who suppose the law to be productive
of agitating fear, are neither good at understanding the law, nor have
they in reality comprehended it; for “the fear of the Lord causes
life, but he who errs shall be afflicted with pangs which knowledge
views not.”[186] Accordingly, Barnabas says mystically, “May God who
rules the universe vouchsafe also to you wisdom, and understanding,
and science, and knowledge of His statutes, and patience. Be therefore
God-taught, seeking what the Lord seeks from you, that He may find you
in the day of judgment lying in wait for these things.” “Children of
love and peace,” he called them gnostically.
Respecting imparting and communicating, though much might be said,
let it suffice to remark that the law prohibits a brother from taking
usury: designating as a brother not only him who is born of the
same parents, but also one of the same race and sentiments, and a
participator in the same word; deeming it right not to take usury for
money, but with open hands and heart to bestow on those who need. For
God, the author and the dispenser of such grace, takes as suitable
usury the most precious things to be found among men--mildness,
gentleness, magnanimity, reputation, renown. Do you not regard this
command as marked by philanthropy? As also the following, “To pay
the wages of the poor daily,” teaches to discharge without delay the
wages due for service; for, as I think, the alacrity of the poor
with reference to the future is paralyzed when he has suffered want.
Further, it is said, “Let not the creditor enter the debtor’s house
to take the pledge with violence.” But let the former ask it to be
brought out, and let not the latter, if he have it, hesitate.[187]
And in the harvest the owners are prohibited from appropriating what
falls from the handfuls; as also in reaping [the law] enjoins a part
to be left unreaped; signally thereby training those who possess to
sharing and to large-heartedness, by foregoing of their own to those
who are in want, and thus providing means of subsistence for the
poor.[188] You see how the law proclaims at once the righteousness and
the goodness of God, who dispenses food to all ungrudgingly. And in
the vintage it prohibited the grape-gatherers from going back again on
what had been left, and from gathering the fallen grapes; and the same
injunctions are given to the olive-gatherers.[189] Besides, the tithes
of the fruits and of the flocks taught both piety towards the Deity,
and not covetously to grasp everything, but to communicate gifts of
kindness to one’s neighbours. For it was from these, I reckon, and from
the first-fruits that the priests were maintained. We now therefore
understand that we are instructed in piety, and in liberality, and in
justice, and in humanity by the law. For does it not command the land
to be left fallow in the seventh year, and bids the poor fearlessly use
the fruits that grow by divine agency, nature cultivating the ground
for behoof of all and sundry?[190] How, then, can it be maintained
that the law is not humane, and the teacher of righteousness? Again,
in the fiftieth year, it ordered the same things to be performed as in
the seventh; besides restoring to each one his own land, if from any
circumstance he had parted with it in the meantime; setting bounds
to the desires of those who covet possession, by measuring the period
of enjoyment, and choosing that those who have paid the penalty of
protracted penury should not suffer a life-long punishment. “But alms
and acts of faith are royal guards, and blessing is on the head of him
who bestows; and he who pities the poor shall be blessed.”[191] For he
shows love to one like himself, because of his love to the Creator of
the human race. The above-mentioned particulars have other explanations
more natural, both respecting rest and the recovery of the inheritance;
but they are not discussed at present.
Now love is conceived in many ways, in the form of meekness, of
mildness, of patience, of liberality, of freedom from envy, of absence
of hatred, of forgetfulness of injuries. In all it is incapable of
being divided or distinguished: its nature is to communicate. Again,
it is said, “If you see the beast of your relatives, or friends, or,
in general, of anybody you know, wandering in the wilderness, take
it back and restore it;[192] and if the owner be far away, keep it
among your own till he return, and restore it.” It teaches a natural
communication, that what is found is to be regarded as a deposit, and
that we are not to bear malice to an enemy. “The command of the Lord
being a fountain of life” truly, “causeth to turn away from the snare
of death.”[193] And what? Does it not command us “to love strangers
not only as friends and relatives, but as ourselves, both in body and
soul?”[194] Nay more, it honoured the nations, and bears no grudge[195]
against those who have done ill. Accordingly it is expressly said,
“Thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian, for thou wast a sojourner in
Egypt;”[196] designating by the term Egyptian either one of that race,
or any one in the world. And enemies, although drawn up before the
walls attempting to take the city, are not to be regarded as enemies
till they are by the voice of the herald summoned to peace.[197]
Farther, it forbids intercourse with a female captive so as to
dishonour her. “But allow her,” it says, “thirty days to mourn
according to her wish, and changing her clothes, associate with her as
your lawful wife.”[198] For it regards it not right that intercourse
should take place either in wantonness or for hire like harlots, but
only for the birth of children. Do you see humanity combined with
continence? The master who has fallen in love with his captive maid it
does not allow to gratify his pleasure, but puts a check on his lust by
specifying an interval of time; and further, it cuts off the captive’s
hair, in order to shame disgraceful love: for if it is reason that
induces him to marry, he will cleave to her even after she has become
disfigured. Then if one, after satiating his lust, does not care to
consort any longer with the captive, it ordains that it shall not be
lawful to sell her, or to have her any longer as a servant, but desires
her to be freed and released from service, lest on the introduction of
another wife she bear any of the intolerable miseries caused through
jealousy.
What more? The Lord enjoins to ease and raise up the beasts of enemies
when labouring beneath their burdens; remotely teaching us not to
indulge in joy at our neighbour’s ills, or exult over our enemies;
in order to teach those who are trained in these things to pray for
their enemies. For He does not allow us either to grieve at our
neighbour’s good, or to reap joy at our neighbour’s ill. And if you
find any enemy’s beast straying, you are to pass over the incentives of
difference, and take it back and restore it. For oblivion of injuries
is followed by goodness, and the latter by dissolution of enmity.
From this we are fitted for agreement, and this conducts to felicity.
And should you suppose one habitually hostile, and discover him to
be unreasonably mistaken either through lust or anger, turn him to
goodness. Does the law then which conducts to Christ appear humane
and mild? And does not the same God, good, while characterized by
righteousness from the beginning to the end, employ each kind suitably
in order to salvation? “Be merciful,” says the Lord, “that you may
receive mercy; forgive, that you may be forgiven. As ye do, so shall
it be done to you; as ye give, so shall it be given to you; as ye
judge, so shall ye be judged; as ye show kindness, so shall kindness
be shown to you: with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to
you again.”[199] Furthermore, [the law] prohibits those, who are in
servitude for their subsistence, to be branded with disgrace; and to
those, who have been reduced to slavery through money borrowed, it
gives a complete release in the seventh year. Further, it prohibits
suppliants from being given up to punishment. True above all, then,
is that oracle. “As gold and silver are tried in the furnace, so the
Lord chooseth men’s hearts. The merciful man is long-suffering; and
in every one who shows solicitude there is wisdom. For on a wise man
solicitude will fall; and exercising thought, he will seek life; and
he who seeketh God shall find knowledge with righteousness. And they
who have sought Him rightly have found peace.”[200] And Pythagoras
seems to me, to have derived his mildness towards irrational creatures
from the law. For instance, he interdicted the immediate use of the
young in the flocks of sheep, and goats, and herds of cattle, on the
instant of their birth; not even on the pretext of sacrifice allowing
it, both on account of the young ones and of the mothers; training
man to gentleness by what is beneath him, by means of the irrational
creatures. “Resign accordingly,” he says, “the young one to its dam for
even the first seven days.” For if nothing takes place without a cause,
and milk comes in a shower to animals in parturition for the sustenance
of the progeny, he that tears that, which has been brought forth, away
from the supply of the milk, dishonours nature. Let the Greeks, then,
feel ashamed, and whoever else inveighs against the law; since it shows
mildness in the case of the irrational creatures, while they expose
the offspring of men; though long ago and prophetically, the law, in
the above-mentioned commandment, threw a check in the way of their
cruelty. For if it prohibits the progeny of the irrational creatures
to be separated from the dam before sucking, much more in the case
of men does it provide beforehand a cure for cruelty and savageness
of disposition; so that even if they despise nature, they may not
despise teaching. For they are permitted to satiate themselves with
kids and lambs, and perhaps there might be some excuse for separating
the progeny from its dam. But what cause is there for the exposure of
a child? For the man who did not desire to beget children had no right
to marry at first; certainly not to have become, through licentious
indulgence, the murderer of his children. Again, the humane law forbids
slaying the offspring and the dam together on the same day. Thence also
the Romans, in the case of a pregnant woman being condemned to death,
do not allow her to undergo punishment till she is delivered. The law,
too, expressly prohibits the slaying of such animals as are pregnant
till they have brought forth, remotely restraining the proneness of
man to do wrong to man. Thus also it has extended its clemency to the
irrational creatures; that from the exercise of humanity in the case
of creatures of different species, we might practise among those of
the same species a large abundance of it. Those, too, that kick the
bellies of certain animals before parturition, in order to feast on
flesh mixed with milk, make the womb created for the birth of the fœtus
its grave, though the law expressly commands, “But neither shalt thou
seethe a lamb in its mother’s milk.”[201] For the nourishment of the
living animal, it is meant, may not become sauce for that which has
been deprived of life; and that, which is the cause of life, may not
co-operate in the consumption of the body. And the same law commands
“not to muzzle the ox which treadeth out the corn: for the labourer
must be reckoned worthy of his food.”[202]
And it prohibits an ox and ass to be yoked in the plough together;[203]
pointing perhaps to the want of agreement in the case of the animals;
and at the same time teaching not to wrong any one belonging to
another race, and bring him under the yoke, when there is no other
cause to allege than difference of race, which is no cause at all,
being neither wickedness nor the effect of wickedness. To me the
allegory also seems to signify that the husbandry of the Word is not to
be assigned equally to the clean and the unclean, the believer and the
unbeliever; for the ox is clean, but the ass has been reckoned among
the unclean animals. But the benignant Word, abounding in humanity,
teaches that neither is it right to cut down cultivated trees, or to
cut down the grain before the harvest, for mischief’s sake; nor that
cultivated fruit is to be destroyed at all--either the fruit of the
soil or that of the soul: for it does not permit the enemy’s country to
be laid waste.
Further, husbandmen derived advantage from the law in such things.
For it orders newly planted trees to be nourished three years in
succession, and the superfluous growths to be cut off, to prevent them
being loaded and pressed down; and to prevent their strength being
exhausted from want, by the nutriment being frittered away, enjoins
tilling and digging round them, so that [the tree] may not, by sending
out suckers, hinder its growth. And it does not allow imperfect fruit
to be plucked from immature trees, but after three years, in the fourth
year; dedicating the first-fruits to God after the tree has attained
maturity.
This type of husbandry may serve as a mode of instruction, teaching
that we must cut the growths of sins, and the useless weeds of the
mind that spring up round the vital fruit, till the shoot of faith is
perfected and becomes strong. For in the fourth year, since there is
need of time to him that is being solidly instructed, the four virtues
are consecrated to God, the third alone being already joined to the
fourth,[204] the person of the Lord. And a sacrifice of praise is above
holocausts: “for He,” it is said, “giveth strength to get power.”[205]
And if your affairs are in the sunshine of prosperity, get and keep
strength, and acquire power in knowledge. For by these instances it is
shown that both good things and gifts are supplied by God; and that we,
becoming ministers of the divine grace, ought to sow the benefits of
God, and make those who approach us noble and good; so that, as far as
possible, the temperate man may make others continent, he that is manly
may make them noble, he that is wise may make them intelligent, and the
just may make them just.
CHAPTER XIX.
THE TRUE GNOSTIC IS AN IMITATOR OF GOD, ESPECIALLY
IN BENEFICENCE.
He is the Gnostic, who is after the image and likeness of God, who
imitates God as far as possible, deficient in none of the things
which contribute to the likeness as far as compatible, practising
self-restraint and endurance, living righteously, reigning over the
passions, bestowing of what he has as far as possible, and doing good
both by word and deed. “He is the greatest,” it is said, “in the
kingdom who shall do and teach;”[206] imitating God in conferring like
benefits. For God’s gifts are for the common good. “Whoever shall
attempt to do aught with presumption, provokes God,”[207] it is said.
For haughtiness is a vice of the soul, of which, as of other sins,
He commands us to repent; by adjusting our lives from their state of
derangement to the change for the better in these three things--mouth,
heart, hands. These are signs--the hands of action, the heart of
volition, the mouth of speech. Beautifully, therefore, has this
oracle been spoken with respect to penitents: “Thou hast chosen God
this day to be thy God; and God hath chosen thee this day to be His
people.”[208] For him who hastes to serve the self-existent One, being
a suppliant,[209] God adopts to Himself; and though he be only one in
number, he is honoured equally with the people. For being a part of the
people, he becomes complementary of it, being restored from what he
was; and the whole is named from a part.
But nobility is itself exhibited in choosing and practising what is
best. For what benefit to Adam was such a nobility as he had? No mortal
was his father; for he himself was father of men that are born. What
is base he readily chose, following his wife, and neglected what is
true and good; on which account he exchanged his immortal life for
a mortal life, but not for ever. And Noah, whose origin was not the
same as Adam’s, was saved by divine care. For he took and consecrated
himself to God. And Abraham, who had children by three wives, not for
the indulgence of pleasure, but in the hope, as I think, of multiplying
the race at the first, was succeeded by one alone, who was heir of his
father’s blessings, while the rest were separated from the family; and
of the twins who sprang from him, the younger having won his father’s
favour and received his prayers, became heir, and the elder served him.
For it is the greatest boon to a bad man not to be master of himself.
And this arrangement was prophetical and typical. And that all things
belong to the wise, Scripture clearly indicates when it is said,
“Because God hath had mercy on me, I have all things.”[210] For it
teaches that we are to desire one thing, by which are all things,
and what is promised is assigned to the worthy. Accordingly, the
good man who has become heir of the kingdom, it registers also as
fellow-citizen, through divine wisdom, with the righteous of the olden
time, who under the law and before the law lived according to law,
whose deeds have become laws to us; and again, teaching that the wise
man is king, introduces people of a different race, saying to him,
“Thou art a king before God among us;”[211] those who were governed
obeying the good man of their own accord, from admiration of his virtue.
Now Plato the philosopher, defining the end of happiness, says that
it is likeness to God as far as possible; whether concurring with
the precept of the law (for great natures that are free of passions
somehow hit the mark respecting the truth, as the Pythagorean
Philo says in relating the history of Moses), or whether instructed
by certain oracles of the time, thirsting as he always was for
instruction. For the law says, “Walk after the Lord your God, and keep
my commandments.”[212] For the law calls assimilation following; and
such a following to the utmost of its power assimilates. “Be,” says the
Lord, “merciful and pitiful, as your heavenly Father is pitiful.”[213]
Thence also the Stoics have laid down the doctrine, that living
agreeably to nature is the end, fitly altering the name of God into
nature; since also nature extends to plants, to seeds, to trees, and to
stones. It is therefore plainly said, “Bad men do not understand the
law, but they who love the law fortify themselves with a wall.”[214]
“For the wisdom of the clever knows its ways; but the folly of the
foolish is in error.”[215] “For on whom will I look, but on him who is
mild and gentle, and trembleth at my words?” says the prophecy.
We are taught that there are three kinds of friendship: and that
of these the first and the best is that which results from virtue,
for the love that is founded on reason is firm; that the second and
intermediate is by way of recompense, and is social, liberal, and
useful for life; for the friendship which is the result of favour
is mutual. And the third and last _we_ assert to be that which
is founded on intimacy; others, again, that it is that variable
and changeable form which rests on pleasure. And Hippodamus the
Pythagorean seems to me to describe friendships most admirably: “That
founded on knowledge of the gods, that founded on the gifts of men,
and that on the pleasures of animals.” There is the friendship of a
philosopher,--that of a man and that of an animal. For the image of
God is really the man who does good, in which also he gets good: as
the pilot at once saves, and is saved. Wherefore, when one obtains
his request, he does not say to the giver, Thou hast given well, but,
Thou hast received well. So he receives who gives, and he gives who
receives. “But the righteous pity and show mercy.”[216] “But the mild
shall be inhabitants of the earth, and the innocent shall be left in
it. But the transgressors shall be extirpated from it.”[217] And Homer
seems to me to have said prophetically of the faithful, “Give to thy
friend.” And an enemy must be aided, that he may not continue an enemy.
For by help good feeling is compacted, and enmity dissolved. “But if
there be present readiness of mind, according to what a man hath it
is acceptable, and not according to what he hath not; for it is not
that there be ease to others, but tribulation to you, but of equality
at the present time,” and so forth.[218] “He hath dispersed, he hath
given to the poor; his righteousness endureth for ever,” the Scripture
says.[219] For conformity with the image and likeness is not meant of
the body (for it were wrong for what is mortal to be made like what is
immortal), but in mind and reason, on which fitly the Lord impresses
the seal of likeness, both in respect of doing good and of exercising
rule. For governments are directed not by corporeal qualities, but
by judgments of the mind. For by the counsels of holy men states are
managed well, and the household also.
CHAPTER XX.
THE TRUE GNOSTIC EXERCISES PATIENCE AND
SELF-RESTRAINT.
Endurance also itself forces its way to the divine likeness, reaping as
its fruit impassibility through patience, if what is related of Ananias
be kept in mind; who belonged to a number, of whom Daniel the prophet,
filled with divine faith, was one. Daniel dwelt at Babylon, as Lot at
Sodom, and Abraham, who a little after became the friend of God, in the
land of Chaldea. The king of the Babylonians let Daniel down into a
pit full of wild beasts; the King of all, the faithful Lord, took him
up unharmed. Such patience will the Gnostic, as a Gnostic, possess.
He will bless when under trial, like the noble Job; like Jonas, when
swallowed up by the whale, he will pray, and faith will restore him to
prophesy to the Ninevites; and though shut up with lions, he will tame
the wild beasts; though cast into the fire, he will be besprinkled with
dew, but not consumed. He will give his testimony by night; he will
testify by day; by word, by life, by conduct, he will testify. Dwelling
with the Lord,[220] he will continue his familiar friend, sharing the
same hearth according to the Spirit; pure in the flesh, pure in heart,
sanctified in word. “The world,” it is said, “is crucified to him, and
he to the world.” He, bearing about the cross of the Saviour, will
follow the Lord’s footsteps, as God, having become holy of holies.
The divine law, then, while keeping in mind all virtue, trains man
especially to self-restraint, laying this as the foundation of
the virtues; and disciplines us beforehand to the attainment of
self-restraint by forbidding us to partake of such things as are by
nature fat, as the breed of swine, which is full-fleshed. For such a
use is assigned to epicures. It is accordingly said that one of the
philosophers, giving the etymology of ὗς (sow), said that it was θύς,
as being fit only for slaughter (θύσιν) and killing; for life was
given to this animal for no other purpose than that it might swell
in flesh. Similarly, repressing our desires, it forbade partaking of
fishes which have neither fins nor scales; for these surpass other
fishes in fleshiness and fatness. From this it was, in my opinion, that
the mysteries not only prohibited touching certain animals, but also
withdrew certain parts of those slain in sacrifice, for reasons which
are known to the initiated. If, then, we are to exercise control over
the belly, and what is below the belly, it is clear that we have of old
heard from the Lord that we are to check lust by the law.
And this will be completely effected, if we unfeignedly condemn what
is the fuel of lust: I mean pleasure. Now they say that the idea of
it is a gentle and bland excitement, accompanied with some sensation.
Enthralled by this, Menelaus, they say, after the capture of Troy,
having rushed to put Helen to death, as having been the cause of such
calamities, was nevertheless not able to effect it, being subdued by
her beauty, which made him think of pleasure. Whence the tragedians,
jeering, exclaimed insultingly against him:
“But thou, when on her breast thou lookedst, thy sword
Didst cast away, and with a kiss the traitress,
Ever-beauteous wretch,[221] thou didst embrace.”
And again:
“Was the sword then by beauty blunted?”
And I agree with Antisthenes when he says, “Could I catch Aphrodite,
I would shoot her; for she has destroyed many of our beautiful and
good women.” And he says that “Love[222] is a vice of nature, and the
wretches who fall under its power call the disease a deity.” For in
these words it is shown that stupid people are overcome from ignorance
of pleasure, to which we ought to give no admittance, even though it
be called a god, that is, though it be given by God for the necessity
of procreation. And Xenophon, expressly calling pleasure a vice, says:
“Wretch, what good dost thou know, or what honourable aim hast thou?
which dost not even wait for the appetite for sweet things, eating
before being hungry, drinking before being thirsty; and that thou
mayest eat pleasantly, seeking out fine cooks; and that thou mayest
drink pleasantly, procuring costly wines; and in summer runnest about
seeking snow; and that thou mayest sleep pleasantly, not only providest
soft beds, but also supports[223] to the couches.” Whence, as Aristo
said, “against the whole tetrachord of pleasure, pain, fear, and lust,
there is need of much exercise and struggle.”
“For it is these, it is these that go through our bowels,
And throw into disorder men’s hearts.”
“For the minds of those even who are deemed grave, pleasure makes
waxen,” according to Plato; since “each pleasure and pain nails to the
body the soul” of the man, that does not sever and crucify himself from
the passions. “He that loses his life,” says the Lord, “shall save it;”
either giving it up by exposing it to danger for the Lord’s sake, as He
did for us, or loosing it from fellowship with its habitual life. For
if you would loose, and withdraw, and separate (for this is what the
cross means) your soul from the delight and pleasure that is in this
life, you will possess it, found and resting in the looked-for hope.
And this would be the exercise of death, if we would be content with
those desires which are measured according to nature alone, which do
not pass the limit of those which are in accordance with nature--by
going to excess, or going against nature--in which the possibility of
sinning arises. “We must therefore put on the panoply of God, that
we may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil; since the
weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the
pulling down of strongholds, casting down reasonings, and every lofty
thing which exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing
every thought into captivity unto the obedience of Christ,”[224]
says the divine apostle. There is need of a man who shall use in a
praiseworthy and discriminating manner the things from which passions
take their rise, as riches and poverty, honour and dishonour, health
and sickness, life and death, toil and pleasure. For, in order that
we may treat things, that are different, indifferently, there is need
of a great difference in us, as having been previously afflicted with
much feebleness, and in the distortion of a bad training and nurture
ignorantly indulged ourselves. The simple word, then, of our philosophy
declares the passions to be impressions on the soul that is soft and
yielding, and, as it were, the signatures of the spiritual powers with
whom we have to struggle. For it is the business, in my opinion, of
the maleficent powers to endeavour to produce somewhat of their own
constitution in everything, so as to overcome and make their own those
who have renounced them. And it follows, as might be expected, that
some are worsted; but in the case of those who engage in the contest
with more athletic energy, the powers mentioned above, after carrying
on the conflict in all forms, and advancing even as far as the crown
wading in gore, decline the battle, and admire the victors.
For of objects that are moved, some are moved by impulse and
appearance, as animals; and some by transposition, as inanimate
objects. And of things without life, plants, they say, are moved
by transposition in order to growth, if we will concede to them
that plants are without life. To stones, then, belongs a permanent
state. Plants have a nature; and the irrational animals possess
impulse and perception, and likewise the two characteristics already
specified.[225] But the reasoning faculty, being peculiar to the human
soul, ought not to be impelled similarly with the irrational animals,
but ought to discriminate appearances, and not to be carried away by
them. The powers, then, of which we have spoken hold out beautiful
sights, and honours, and adulteries, and pleasures, and such like
alluring phantasies before facile spirits; as those who drive away
cattle hold out branches to them. Then, having beguiled those incapable
of distinguishing the true from the false pleasure, and the fading and
meretricious from the holy beauty, they lead them into slavery. And
each deceit, by pressing constantly on the spirit, impresses its image
on it; and the soul unwittingly carries about the image of the passion,
which takes its rise from the bait and our consent.
The adherents of Basilides are in the habit of calling the passions
appendages: saying that these are in essence certain spirits attached
to the rational soul, through some original perturbation and confusion;
and that, again, other bastard and heterogeneous natures of spirits
grow on to them, like that of the wolf, the ape, the lion, the goat,
whose properties showing themselves around the soul, they say,
assimilate the lusts of the soul to the likeness of the animals. For
they imitate the actions of those whose properties they bear. And
not only are they associated with the impulses and perceptions of
the irrational animals, but they affect[226] the motions and the
beauties of plants, on account of their bearing also the properties of
plants attached to them. They have also the properties of a particular
state, as the hardness of steel. But against this dogma we shall argue
subsequently, when we treat of the soul. At present this only needs
to be pointed out, that man, according to Basilides, preserves the
appearance of a wooden horse, according to the poetic myth, embracing
as he does in one body a host of such different spirits. Accordingly,
Basilides’ son himself, Isidorus, in his book, _About the Soul
attached to us_, while agreeing in the dogma, as if condemning
himself, writes in these words: “For if I persuade any one that the
soul is undivided, and that the passions of the wicked are occasioned
by the violence of the appendages, the worthless among men will have
no slight pretence for saying, ‘I was compelled, I was carried away, I
did it against my will, I acted unwillingly;’ though he himself led the
desire of evil things, and did not fight against the assaults of the
appendages. But we must, by acquiring superiority in the rational part,
show ourselves masters of the inferior creation in us.” For he too lays
down the hypothesis of two souls in us, like the Pythagoreans, at whom
we shall glance afterwards.
Valentinus too, in a letter to certain people, writes in these
very words respecting the appendages: “There is one good, by whose
presence[227] is the manifestation, which is by the Son, and by Him
alone can the heart become pure, by the expulsion of every evil
spirit from the heart: for the multitude of spirits dwelling in it do
not suffer it to be pure; but each of them performs his own deeds,
insulting it oft with unseemly lusts. And the heart seems to be treated
somewhat like a caravanserai. For the latter has holes and ruts made
in it, and is often filled with dung; men living filthily in it, and
taking no care for the place as belonging to others. So fares it with
the heart as long as there is no thought taken for it, being unclean,
and the abode of many demons. But when the alone good Father visits it,
it is sanctified, and gleams with light. And he who possesses such a
heart is so blessed, that “he shall see God.””[228]
What, then, let them tell us, is the cause of such a soul not being
cared for from the beginning? Either that it is not worthy (and somehow
a care for it comes to it as from repentance), or it is a saved nature,
as he would have it; and this, of necessity, from the beginning,
being cared for by reason of its affinity, afforded no entrance to
the impure spirits, unless by being forced and found feeble. For were
he to grant that on repentance it preferred what was better, he will
say this unwillingly, being what the truth we hold teaches; namely,
that salvation is from a change due to obedience, but not from nature.
For as the exhalations which arise from the earth, and from marshes,
gather into mists and cloudy masses; so the vapours of fleshly lusts
bring on the soul an evil condition, scattering about the idols of
pleasure before the soul. Accordingly they spread darkness over the
light of intelligence, the spirit attracting the exhalations that arise
from lust, and thickening the masses of the passions by persistency
in pleasures. Gold is not taken from the earth in the lump, but is
purified by smelting; then, when made pure, it is called gold, the
earth being purified. For “Ask, and it shall be given you,”[229] it is
said to those who are able of themselves to choose what is best. And
how we say that the powers of the devil, and the unclean spirits, sow
into the sinner’s soul, requires no more words from me, on adducing as
a witness the apostolic Barnabas (and he was one of the seventy, and a
fellow-worker of Paul), who speaks in these words: “Before we believed
in God, the dwelling-place of our heart was unstable, truly a temple
built with hands. For it was full of idolatry, and was a house of
demons, through doing what was opposed to God.”[230]
He says, then, that sinners exercise activities appropriate to demons;
but he does not say that the spirits themselves dwell in the soul of
the unbeliever. Wherefore he also adds, “See that the temple of the
Lord be gloriously built. Learn, having received remission of sins; and
having set our hope on the Name, let us become new, created again from
the beginning.” For what he says is not that demons are driven out of
us, but that the sins which like them we commit before believing are
remitted. Rightly thus he puts in opposition what follows: “Wherefore
God truly dwells in our home. He dwells in us. How? The word of His
faith, the calling of His promise, the wisdom of His statutes, the
commandments of His communication, [dwell in us].”
“I know that I have come upon a heresy; and its chief was wont to say
that he fought with pleasure by pleasure, this worthy Gnostic advancing
on pleasure in feigned combat, for he said he was a Gnostic; since he
said it was no great thing for a man that had not tried pleasure to
abstain from it, but for one who had mixed in it not to be overcome
[was something]; and that therefore by means of it he trained himself
in it. The wretched man knew not that he was deceiving himself by
the artfulness of voluptuousness. To this opinion, then, manifestly
Aristippus the Cyrenian adhered--that of the sophist who boasted of the
truth. Accordingly, when reproached for continually cohabiting with the
Corinthian courtezan, he said, “I possess Lais, and am not possessed by
her.”
Such also are those who say that they follow Nicolaus, quoting an adage
of the man, which they pervert, “that the flesh must be abused.” But
the worthy man showed that it was necessary to check pleasures and
lusts, and by such training to waste away the impulses and propensities
of the flesh. But they, abandoning themselves to pleasure like goats,
as if insulting the body, lead a life of self-indulgence; not knowing
that the body is wasted, being by nature subject to dissolution; while
their soul is buried in the mire of vice; following as they do the
teaching of pleasure itself, not of the apostolic man. For in what do
they differ from Sardanapalus, whose life is shown in the epigram:
“I have what I ate--what I enjoyed wantonly;
And the pleasures I felt in love. But those
Many objects of happiness are left,
For I too am dust, who ruled great Ninus.”
For the feeling of pleasure is not at all a necessity, but the
accompaniment of certain natural needs--hunger, thirst, cold, marriage.
If, then, it were possible to drink without it, or take food, or beget
children, no other need of it could be shown. For pleasure is neither
a function, nor a state, nor any part of us; but has been introduced
into life as an auxiliary, as they say salt was to season food. But
when it casts off restraint and rules the house, it generates first
concupiscence, which is an irrational propension and impulse towards
that which gratifies it; and it induced Epicurus to lay down pleasure
as the aim of the philosopher. Accordingly he deifies a sound condition
of body, and the certain hope respecting it. For what else is luxury
than the voluptuous gluttony and the superfluous abundance of those who
are abandoned to self-indulgence? Diogenes writes significantly in a
tragedy:
“Who to the pleasures of effeminate
And filthy luxury attached in heart,
Wish not to undergo the slightest toil.”
And what follows, expressed indeed in foul language, but in a manner
worthy of the voluptuaries.
Wherefore the divine law appears to me necessarily to menace with
fear, that, by caution and attention, the philosopher may acquire and
retain absence of anxiety, continuing without fall and without sin
in all things. For peace and freedom are not otherwise won, than by
ceaseless and unyielding struggles with our lusts. For these stout and
Olympic antagonists are keener than wasps, so to speak; and Pleasure
especially, not by day only, but by night, is in dreams with witchcraft
ensnaringly plotting and biting. How, then, can the Greeks any more be
right in running down the law, when they themselves teach that Pleasure
is the slave of fear? Socrates accordingly bids “people guard against
enticements to eat when they are not hungry, and to drink when not
thirsty, and the glances and kisses of the fair, as fitted to inject a
deadlier poison than that of scorpions and spiders.” And Antisthenes
chose rather “_to be demented than delighted_.” And the Theban
Crates says:
“Master these, exulting in the disposition of the soul,
Vanquished neither by gold nor by languishing love,
Nor are they any longer attendants to the wanton.”
And at length infers:
“Those, unenslaved and unbended by servile Pleasure,
Love the immortal kingdom and freedom.”
He writes expressly, in other words, “that the stop[231] to the
unbridled propensity to amorousness is hunger or a halter.”
And the comic poets attest, while they depreciate the teaching of Zeno
the Stoic, to be to the following effect:
“For he philosophizes a vain philosophy:
He teaches to want food, and gets pupils
One loaf, and for seasoning a dried fig, and to drink water.”
All these, then, are not ashamed clearly to confess the advantage which
accrues from caution. And the wisdom which is true and not contrary
to reason, trusting not in mere words and oracular utterances, but in
invulnerable armour of defence and energetic mysteries, and devoting
itself to divine commands, and exercise, and practice, receives a
divine power according to its inspiration from the Word.
Already, then, the ægis of the poetic Jove is described as
“Dreadful, crowned all around by Terror,
And on it Strife and Prowess, and chilling Rout;
On it, too, the Gorgon’s head, dread monster,
Terrible, dire, the sign of Ægis-bearing Jove.”[232]
But to those, who are able rightly to understand salvation, I know not
what will appear dearer than the gravity of the Law, and Reverence,
which is its daughter. For when one is said to pitch too high, as also
the Lord says, with reference to certain; so that some of those whose
desires are towards Him may not sing out of pitch and tune, I do not
understand it as pitching too high in reality, but only as spoken with
reference to such as will not take up the divine yoke. For to those,
who are unstrung and feeble, what is medium seems too high; and to
those, who are unrighteous, what befalls them seems severe justice.
For those, who, on account of the favour they entertain for sins, are
prone to pardon, suppose truth to be harshness, and severity to be
savageness, and him who does not sin with them, and is not dragged with
them, to be pitiless. Tragedy writes therefore well of Pluto:
“And to what sort of a deity wilt thou come,[233] dost thou ask,
Who knows neither clemency nor favour,
But loves bare justice alone.”
For although you are not yet able to do the things enjoined by the
Law, yet, considering that the noblest examples are set before us in
it, we are able to nourish and increase the love of liberty; and so
we shall profit more eagerly as far as we can, inviting some things,
imitating some things, and fearing others. For thus the righteous
of the olden time, who lived according to the law, “were not from a
storied oak, or from a rock;” because they wished to philosophize
truly, took and devoted themselves entirely to God, and were classified
under faith. Zeno said well of the Indians, that he would rather have
seen one Indian roasted, than have learned the whole of the arguments
about bearing pain. But we have exhibited before our eyes every day
abundant sources of martyrs that are burnt, impaled, beheaded. All
these the fear inspired by the law,--leading as a pædagogue to Christ,
trained so as to manifest their piety by their blood. “God stood in the
congregation of the gods; He judgeth in the midst of the gods.”[234]
Who are they? Those that are superior to Pleasure, who rise above the
passions, who know what they do--the Gnostics, who are greater than the
world. “I said, Ye are gods; and all sons of the Highest.”[235] To whom
speaks the Lord? To those who reject as far as possible all that is of
man. And the apostle says, “For ye are not any longer in the flesh,
but in the Spirit.”[236] And again he says, “Though in the flesh, we
do not war after the flesh.”[237] “For flesh and blood cannot inherit
the kingdom of God, neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.”[238]
“Lo, ye shall die like men,” the Spirit has said, confuting us.
We must then exercise ourselves in taking care about those things
which fall under the power of the passions, fleeing like those who are
truly philosophers such articles of food as excite lust, and dissolute
licentiousness in chambering and luxury; and the sensations that tend
to luxury, which are a solid reward to others, must no longer be so
to us. For God’s greatest gift is self-restraint. For He Himself has
said, “I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee,”[239] as having
judged thee worthy according to the true election. Thus, then, while we
attempt piously to advance, we shall have put on us the mild yoke of
the Lord from faith to faith, one charioteer driving each of us onward
to salvation, that the meet fruit of beatitude may be won. “_Exercise
is_,” according to Hippocrates of Cos, “_not only the health of
the body, but of the soul--fearlessness of labours--a ravenous appetite
for food_.”
CHAPTER XXI.
OPINIONS OF VARIOUS PHILOSOPHERS ON THE CHIEF GOOD.
Epicurus, in placing happiness in not being hungry, or thirsty, or
cold, uttered that godlike word, saying impiously that he would fight
in these points even with Father Jove; teaching, as if it were the
case of pigs that live in filth and not that of rational philosophers,
that happiness was victory. For of those that are ruled by pleasure
are the Cyrenaics and Epicurus; for these expressly said that to live
pleasantly was the chief end, and that pleasure was the only perfect
good. Epicurus also says that the removal of pain is pleasure; and
says that that is to be preferred, which first attracts from itself
to itself, being, that is, wholly in motion. Dinomachus and Callipho
said that the chief end was for one to do what he could for the
attainment and enjoyment of pleasure; and Hieronymus the Peripatetic
said the great end was to live unmolested, and that the only final
good was happiness; and Diodorus likewise, who belonged to the same
sect, pronounces the end to be to live undisturbed and well. Epicurus
indeed, and the Cyrenaics, say that pleasure is the first duty; for it
is for the sake of pleasure, they say, that virtue was introduced, and
produced pleasure. According to the followers of Calliphon, virtue was
introduced for the sake of pleasure, but that subsequently, on seeing
its own beauty, it made itself equally prized with the first principle,
that is, pleasure.
But the Aristotelians lay it down, that to live in accordance with
virtue is the end, but that neither happiness nor the end is reached
by every one who has virtue. For the wise man, vexed and involved in
involuntary mischances, and wishing gladly on these accounts to flee
from life, is neither fortunate nor happy. For virtue needs time; for
that is not acquired in one day which exists [only] in the perfect man;
since, as they say, a child is never happy. But human life is a perfect
time, and therefore happiness is completed by the three kinds of good
things. Neither, then, the poor, nor the mean, nor even the diseased,
nor the slave, can be one of them.
Again, on the other hand, Zeno the Stoic thinks the end to be living
according to virtue; and Cleanthes, living agreeably to nature in the
right exercise of reason, which he held to consist of the selection
of things according to nature. And Antipatrus, his friend, supposes
the end to consist in choosing continually and unswervingly the
things which are according to nature, and rejecting those contrary to
nature. Archedamus, on the other hand, explained the end to be such,
that in selecting the greatest and chief things according to nature,
it was impossible to overstep it. In addition to these, Panætius
pronounced the end to be, to live according to the means given to us
by nature. And finally, Posidonius said that it was to live engaged in
contemplating the truth and order of the universe, and forming himself
as he best can, in nothing influenced by the irrational part of his
soul. And some of the later Stoics defined the great end to consist
in living agreeably to the constitution of man. Why should I mention
Aristo? He said that the end was indifference; but what is indifferent
simply abandons the indifferent. Shall I bring forward the opinions of
Herillus? Herillus states the end to be to live according to science.
For some think that the more recent disciples of the Academy define the
end to be, the steady abstraction of the mind to its own impressions.
Further, Lycus the Peripatetic used to say that the final end was
the true joy of the soul; as Leucimus, that it was the joy it had in
what was good. Critolaus, also a Peripatetic, said that it was the
perfection of a life flowing rightly according to nature, referring to
the perfection accomplished by the three kinds according to tradition.
We must, however, not rest satisfied with these, but endeavour as
we best can to adduce the doctrines laid down on the point by the
naturalists; for they say that Anaxagoras of Clazomenæ affirmed
contemplation and the freedom flowing from it to be the end of life;
Heraclitus the Ephesian, complacency. The Pontic Heraclides relates,
that Pythagoras taught that the knowledge of the perfection of the
numbers[240] was happiness of the soul. The Abderites also teach the
existence of an end. Democritus, in his work _On the Chief End_,
said it was cheerfulness, which he also called well-being, and often
exclaims, “For delight and its absence are the boundary of those who
have reached full age;” Hecatæus, that it was sufficiency to one’s
self; Apollodotus of Cyzicum, that it was delectation; as Nausiphanes,
that it was undauntedness,[241] for he said that it was this that was
called by Democritus imperturbability. In addition to these still,
Diotimus declared the end to be perfection of what is good, which he
said was termed well-being. Again, Antisthenes, that it was humility.
And those called Annicereans, of the Cyrenaic succession, laid down
no definite end for the whole of life; but said that to each action
belonged, as its proper end, the pleasure accruing from the action.
These Cyrenaics reject Epicurus’ definition of pleasure, that is the
removal of pain, calling that the condition of a dead man; because
we rejoice not only on account of pleasures, but companionships and
distinctions; while Epicurus thinks that all joy of the soul arises
from previous sensations of the flesh. Metrodorus, in his book _On
the Source of Happiness in Ourselves being greater than that which
arises from Objects_, says: What else is the good of the soul but
the sound state of the flesh, and the sure hope of its continuance?
CHAPTER XXII.
PLATO’S OPINION, THAT THE CHIEF GOOD CONSISTS IN
ASSIMILATION TO GOD, AND ITS AGREEMENT WITH
SCRIPTURE.
Further, Plato the philosopher says that the end is twofold: that which
is communicable, and exists first in the ideal forms themselves, which
he also calls “the good;” and that which partakes of it, and receives
its likeness from it, as is the case in the men who appropriate virtue
and true philosophy. Wherefore also Cleanthes, in the second book,
_On Pleasure_, says that Socrates everywhere teaches that the
just man and the happy are one and the same, and execrated the first
man who separated the just from the useful, as having done an impious
thing. For those are in truth impious who separate the useful from
that which is right according to the law. Plato himself says that
happiness (εὐδαιμονία) is to possess rightly the dæmon, and that the
ruling faculty of the soul is called the dæmon; and he terms happiness
(εὐδαιμονία) the most perfect and complete good. Sometimes he calls
it a consistent and harmonious life, sometimes the highest perfection
in accordance with virtue; and this he places in the knowledge of the
Good, and in likeness to God, demonstrating likeness to be justice
and holiness with wisdom. For is it not thus that some of our writers
have understood that man straightway on his creation received what
is “according to the image,” but that what is according “to the
likeness” he will receive afterwards on his perfection? Now Plato,
teaching that the virtuous man shall have this likeness accompanied
with humility, explains the following: “He that humbleth himself
shall be exalted.”[242] He says, accordingly, in _The Laws_:
“God indeed, as the ancient saying has it, occupying the beginning,
the middle, and the end of all things, goes straight through while He
goes round the circumference. And He is always attended by Justice,
the avenger of those who revolt from the divine law.” You see how
he connects fear with the divine law. He adds, therefore: “To which
he, who would be happy, cleaving, will follow lowly and beautified.”
Then, connecting what follows these words, and admonishing by fear,
he adds: “What conduct, then, is dear and conformable to God? That
which is characterized by one word of old date: _Like will be dear
to like_, as to what is in proportion; but things out of proportion
are neither dear to one another, nor to those which are in proportion.
And that therefore he that would be dear to God, must, to the best of
his power, become such as He is. And in virtue of the same reason, our
self-controlling man is dear to God. But he that has no self-control
is unlike and diverse.” In saying that it was an ancient dogma, he
indicates the teaching which had come to him from the law. And having
in the _Theatætus_ admitted that evils make the circuit of mortal
nature and of this spot, he adds: “Wherefore we must try to flee hence
as soon as possible. For flight is likeness to God as far as possible.
And likeness is to become holy and just with wisdom.” Speusippus, the
nephew of Plato, says that happiness is a perfect state in those who
conduct themselves in accordance with nature, or the state of the good:
for which condition all men have a desire, but the good only attain
to quietude; consequently the virtues are the authors of happiness.
And Xenocrates the Chalcedonian defines happiness to be the possession
of virtue, strictly so called, and of the power subservient to it.
Then he clearly says, that the seat in which it resides is the soul;
that by which it is effected, the virtues; and that of these as parts
are formed praiseworthy actions, good habits and dispositions, and
motions, and relations; and that corporeal and external objects are
not without these. For Polemo, the disciple of Xenocrates, seems of
the opinion that happiness is sufficiency of all good things, or of
the most and greatest. He lays down the doctrine, then, that happiness
never exists without virtue; and that virtue, apart from corporeal
and external objects, is sufficient for happiness. Let these things
be so. The contradictions to the opinions specified shall be adduced
in due time. But on us it is incumbent to reach the unaccomplished
end, obeying the commands--that is, God--and living according to them,
irreproachably and intelligently, through knowledge of the divine will;
and assimilation as far as possible in accordance with right reason is
the end, and restoration to perfect adoption by the Son, which ever
glorifies the Father by the great High Priest who has deigned to call
us brethren and fellow-heirs. And the apostle, succinctly describing
the end, writes in the Epistle to the Romans: “But now, being made
free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto
holiness, and the end everlasting life.”[243] And viewing the hope as
twofold--that which is expected, and that which has been received--he
now teaches the end to be the restitution of the hope. “For patience,”
he says, “worketh experience, and experience hope: and hope maketh
not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by
the Holy Spirit that is given to us.”[244] On account of which love
and the restoration to hope, he says, in another place, “_which
rest_ is laid up for us.”[245] You will find in Ezekiel the like,
as follows: “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. And the man who
shall be righteous, and shall do judgment and justice, who has not
eaten on the mountains, nor lifted his eyes to the idols of the house
of Israel, and hath not defiled his neighbour’s wife, and hath not
approached to a woman in the time of her uncleanness (for he does not
wish the seed of man to be dishonoured), and will not injure a man;
will restore the debtor’s pledge, and will not take usury; will turn
away his hand from wrong; will do true judgment between a man and his
neighbour; will walk in my ordinances, and keep my commandments, so as
to do the truth; he is righteous, he shall surely live, saith Adonai
the Lord.”[246] Isaiah too, in exhorting him that hath not believed
to gravity of life, and the Gnostic to attention, proving that man’s
virtue and God’s are not the same, speaks thus: “Seek the Lord, and
on finding Him call on Him. And when He shall draw near to you, let
the wicked forsake his ways, and the unrighteous man his ways; and let
him return to the Lord, and he shall obtain mercy,” down to “and your
thoughts from my thoughts.”[247] “We,” then, according to the noble
apostle, “wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Christ
neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith
which worketh by love.”[248] “And we desire that every one of you show
the same diligence to the full assurance of hope,” down to “made an
high priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek.”[249] Similarly
with Paul “the All-virtuous Wisdom” says, “He that heareth me shall
dwell trusting in hope.”[250] For the restoration of hope is called
by the same term “hope.” To the expression “will dwell” it has most
beautifully added “trusting,” showing that such an one has obtained
rest, having received the hope for which he hoped. Wherefore also it
is added, “and shall be quiet, without fear of any evil.” And openly
and expressly the apostle, in the first Epistle to the Corinthians,
says, “Be ye followers of me, as also I am of Christ,”[251] in order
that that may take place. If ye are of me, and I am of Christ, then ye
are imitators of Christ, and Christ of God. _Assimilation to God,
then, so that as far as possible a man becomes righteous and holy with
wisdom_, he lays down as the aim of faith, and the end to be that
restitution of the promise which is effected by faith. From these
doctrines gush the fountains, which we specified above, of those who
have dogmatized about “the end.” But of these enough.
CHAPTER XXIII.
ON MARRIAGE.
Since pleasure and lust seem to fall under marriage, it must also be
treated of. Marriage is the first conjunction of man and woman for the
procreation of legitimate children. Accordingly Menander the comic poet
says:
“For the begetting of legitimate children,
I give thee my daughter.”
We ask if we ought to marry; which is one of the points, which are
said to be relative. For some must marry, and a man must be in some
condition, and he must marry some one in some condition. For every
one is not to marry, nor always. But there is a time in which it is
suitable, and a person for whom it is suitable, and an age up to
which it is suitable. Neither ought every one to take a wife, nor
is it every woman one is to take, nor always, nor in every way, nor
inconsiderately. But only he who is in certain circumstances, and such
an one and at such time as is requisite, and for the sake of children,
and one who is in every respect similar, and who does not by force or
compulsion love the husband who loves her. Hence Abraham, regarding his
wife as a sister, says, “She is my sister by my father, but not by my
mother; and she became my wife,”[252] teaching us that children of the
same mothers ought not to enter into matrimony. Let us briefly follow
the history. Plato ranks marriage among outward good things, providing
for the perpetuity of our race, and handing down as a torch a certain
perpetuity to children’s children. Democritus repudiates marriage and
the procreation of children, on account of the many annoyances thence
arising, and abstractions from more necessary things. Epicurus agrees,
and those who place good in pleasure, and in the absence of trouble and
pain. According to the opinion of the Stoics, marriage and the rearing
of children are a thing indifferent; and according to the Peripatetics,
a good. In a word, these, following out their dogmas in words, became
enslaved to pleasures; some using concubines, some mistresses, and the
most youths. And that wise quaternion in the garden with a mistress,
honoured pleasure by their acts. Those, then, will not escape the curse
of yoking an ass with an ox, who, judging certain things not to suit
them, command others to do them, or the reverse. This Scripture has
briefly showed, when it says, “What thou hatest, thou shalt not do to
another.”[253]
But they who approve of marriage say, Nature has adapted us for
marriage, as is evident from the structure of our bodies, which are
male and female. And they constantly proclaim that command, “Increase
and replenish.”[254] And though this is the case, yet it seems to them
shameful that man, created by God, should be more licentious than
the irrational creatures, which do not mix with many licentiously,
but with one of the same species, such as pigeons and ringdoves, and
creatures like them. Furthermore, they say, “The childless man fails
in the perfection which is according to nature, not having substituted
his proper successor in his place. For he is perfect that has produced
from himself his like, or rather, when he sees that he has produced
the same; that is, when that which is begotten attains to the same
nature with him who begat.” Therefore we must by all means marry, both
for our country’s sake, for the succession of children, and as far as
we are concerned, the perfection of the world; since the poets also
pity a marriage half-perfect and childless, but pronounce the fruitful
one happy. But it is the diseases of the body that principally show
marriage to be necessary. For a wife’s care and the assiduity of
her constancy appear to exceed the endurance of all other relations
and friends, as much as to excel them in sympathy; and most of all,
she takes kindly to patient watching. And in truth, according to
Scripture, she is a needful help.[255] The comic poet then, Menander,
while running down marriage, and yet alleging on the other side its
advantages, replies to one who had said:
“I am averse to the thing,
For you take it awkwardly.”
Then he adds:
“You see the hardships and the things which annoy you in it.
But you do not look on the advantages.”
And so forth.
Now marriage is a help in the case of those advanced in years, by
furnishing a spouse to take care of one, and by rearing children of her
to nourish one’s old age.
“For to a man after death his children bring renown,
Just as corks bear the net,
Saving the fishing-line from the deep,”[256]
according to the tragic poet Sophocles.
Legislators, moreover, do not allow those who are unmarried to
discharge the highest magisterial offices. For instance, the legislator
of the Spartans imposed a fine not on bachelorhood only, but on
monogamy,[257] and late marriage, and single life. And the renowned
Plato orders the man who has not married to pay a wife’s maintenance
into the public treasury, and to give to the magistrates a suitable sum
of money as expenses. For if they shall not beget children, not having
married, they produce, as far as in them lies, a scarcity of men, and
dissolve states and the world that is composed of them, impiously doing
away with divine generation. It is also unmanly and weak to shun living
with a wife and children. For of that of which the loss is an evil, the
possession is by all means a good; and this is the case with the rest
of things. But the loss of children is, they say, among the chiefest
evils: the possession of children is consequently a good thing; and if
it be so, so also is marriage. It is said:
“Without a father there never could be a child,
And without a mother conception of a child could not be.
Marriage makes a father, as a husband a mother.”
Accordingly Homer makes a thing to be earnestly prayed for:
“A husband and a house;”
yet not simply, but along with good agreement. For the marriage of
other people is an agreement for indulgence; but that of philosophers
leads to that agreement which is in accordance with reason, bidding
wives adorn themselves not in outward appearance, but in character;
and enjoining husbands not to treat their wedded wives as mistresses,
making corporeal wantonness their aim; but to take advantage of
marriage for help in the whole of life, and for the best self-restraint.
Far more excellent, in my opinion, than the seeds of wheat and barley
that are sown at appropriate seasons, is man that is sown, for whom all
things grow; and those seeds temperate husbandmen ever sow. Every foul
and polluting practice must therefore be purged away from marriage;
that the intercourse of the irrational animals may not be cast in
our teeth, as more accordant with nature than human conjunction in
procreation. Some of these, it must be granted, desist at the time in
which they are directed, leaving creation to the working of Providence.
By the tragedians, Polyxena, though being murdered, is described
nevertheless as having, when dying, taken great care to fall decently,--
“Concealing what ought to be hid from the eyes of men.”
Marriage to her was a calamity. To be subjected, then, to the passions,
and to yield to them, is the extremest slavery; as to keep them in
subjection is the only liberty. The divine Scripture accordingly
says, that those who have transgressed the commandments are sold to
strangers, that is, to sins alien to nature, till they return and
repent. Marriage, then, as a sacred image, must be kept pure from those
things which defile it. We are to rise from our slumbers with the Lord,
and retire to sleep with thanksgiving and prayer,--
“Both when you sleep, and when the holy light comes,”
confessing the Lord in our whole life; possessing piety in the soul,
and extending self-control to the body. For it is pleasing to God to
lead decorum from the tongue to our actions. Filthy speech is the way
to effrontery; and the end of both is filthy conduct.
Now that the Scripture counsels marriage, and allows no release from
the union, is expressly contained in the law, “Thou shalt not put away
thy wife, except for the cause of fornication;” and it regards as
fornication, the marriage of those separated while the other is alive.
Not to deck and adorn herself beyond what is becoming, renders a wife
free of calumnious suspicion, while she devotes herself assiduously
to prayers and supplications; avoiding frequent departures from the
house, and shutting herself up as far as possible from the view of all
not related to her, and deeming housekeeping of more consequence than
impertinent trifling. “He that taketh a woman that has been put away,”
it is said, “committeth adultery; and if one puts away his wife, he
makes her an adulteress,”[258] that is, compels her to commit adultery.
And not only is he who puts her away guilty of this, but he who takes
her, by giving to the woman the opportunity of sinning; for did he not
take her, she would return to her husband. What, then, is the law?
In order to check the impetuosity of the passions, it commands the
adulteress to be put to death, on being convicted of this; and if of
priestly family, to be committed to the flames.[259] And the adulterer
also is stoned to death, but not in the same place, that not even their
death may be in common. And the law is not at variance with the gospel,
but agrees with it. How should it be otherwise, one Lord being the
author of both? She who has committed fornication liveth in sin, and is
dead to the commandments; but she who has repented, being as it were
born again by the change in her life, has a regeneration of life; the
old harlot being dead, and she who has been regenerated by repentance
having come back again to life. The Spirit testifies to what has been
said by Ezekiel, declaring, “I desire not the death of the sinner, but
that he should turn.”[260] Now they are stoned to death; as through
hardness of heart dead to the law which they believed not. But in the
case of a priestess the punishment is increased, because “to whom much
is given, from him shall more be required.”[261]
Let us conclude this second book of the _Stromata_ at this point,
on account of the length and number of the chapters.
BOOK III.[262]
CAPUT I.
BASILIDIS SENTENTIAM DE CONTINENTIA ET NUPTIIS
REFUTAT.
Ac Valentiniani quidem, qui desuper ex divinis emissionibus deduxere
conjugationes, acceptum habent matrimonium: Basilidis autem sectatores,
“Cum interrogassent, inquiunt, apostoli, num sit melius uxorem non
ducere, dicunt respondisse Dominum: ‘Non omnes capiunt verbum hoc. Sunt
enim eunuchi alii a nativitate, alii vero a necessitate.’”[263] Hoc
dictum autem sic interpretantur: “Quidam ex quo nati sunt, naturaliter
feminam aversantur, qui quidem hoc naturali utentes temperamento,
recte faciunt, si uxorem non ducant. Hi, inquiunt, eunuchi sunt
ex nativitate. Qui autem sunt a necessitate, ii sunt theatrici
exercitatores, qui, gloriæ studio retracti, se continent. Quinetiam
qui casu aliquo excisi sunt, eunuchi facti sunt per necessitatem. Qui
itaque eunuchi fiunt per necessitatem, non fiunt eunuchi secundum
logon, seu rationem. Qui autem regni sempiterni gratia seipsos
castrarunt, id ad declinandas, inquiunt, conjugii molestias fecerunt,
quod procurandæ rei familiaris onus ac sollicitudinem timerent. Et
illud: ‘Melius est nubere quam uri,’[264] dicentem Apostolum aiunt
velle: Ne animam tuam in ignem injicias, noctu et interdiu resistens,
et timens ne a continentia excidas. Nam cum in resistendo occupata
fuerit anima, a spe est divisa”--“Patienter igitur sustine,” inquit
his verbis Isidorus in _Moralibus_, “contentiosam mulierem, ne a
Dei gratia avellaris; et cum ignem in semine excreveris, cum bona ores
conscientia. Quando autem, inquit, tua gratiarum actio delapsa fuerit
in petitionem, et deinceps steteris, ut tamen labi ac titubare non
desinas, duc uxorem. Sin est aliquis juvenis, vel pauper, vel infirmus,
et non ei libet logo, seu rationi, convenienter uxorem ducere, is a
fratre ne discedat; dicat: Ingressus sum in sancta, nihil possum pati.
Quod si eum suspicio aliqua subeat, dicat: Frater, impone mihi manum,
ne peccem; et confestim tum in mente, tum in corpore opem experietur.
Velit modo quod bonum est perficere, et assequetur. Nonnunquam autem
ore tenus dicimus: Nolumus peccare; animus autem noster propendet in
peccatum. Qui est ejusmodi, propter metum, quod vult, non facit, ne ei
constituatur supplicium. At hominum generi quædam necessaria sunt ac
naturalia duntaxat. Quod indumentis egeat, necessarium simul est et
naturale: est autem venerea voluptas naturalis, sed non necessaria.”
Has voces adduxi ad reprehendendos Basilidianos, qui non recte
vivunt, ut qui vel peccandi potestatem habeant propter perfectionem,
vel omnino quidem natura salvi futuri sint, etsi nunc peccent, quod
naturæ dignitate sunt electi. Neque vero primi dogmatum architecti
eorumdem perpetrandorum potestatem illis faciunt. Ne ergo Christi
nomen suspicientes, et iis, qui sunt in gentibus intemperantissimi,
incontinentius viventes, nomini maledictum inurant. “Qui enim sunt
ejusmodi, pseudapostoli, operarii dolosi,” usque ad illud: “Quorum
finis erit secundum opera eorum.”[265] Est ergo continentia, corporis
despicientia secundum confessionem in Deum; non solum enim in rebus
venereis, sed etiam in aliis, quæ anima perperam concupiscit, non
contenta necessariis, versatur continentia. Est autem et in lingua,
et in acquirendo, et in utendo, et in concupiscendo continentia.
Non docet autem ea solummodo esse temperantes, siquidem præbet
nobis temperantiam, ut quæ sit divina potestas et gratia. Dicendum
est ergo, quidnam nostris videatur de eo, quod est propositum.
Nos quidem castitatem, et eos, quibus hoc a Deo datum est, beatos
dicimus: monogamiam autem, et quæ consistit in uno solum matrimonio,
honestatem admiramur; dicentes tamen oportere aliorum misereri, et
“alterum alterius onera portare,”[266] ne “quis, cum” recte “stare
videatur,”[267] ipse quoque “cadat.” De secundis autem nuptiis: “Si
uraris,” inquit Apostolus, “jungere matrimonio.”[268]
CAPUT II.
CARPOCRATIS ET EPIPHANIS SENTENTIAM DE FEMINARUM
COMMUNITATE REFUTAT.
Qui autem a Carpocrate descendunt et Epiphane, censent oportere
uxores esse communes; a quibus contra nomen Christi maximum emanavit
probrum. Hic autem Epiphanes, cujus etiam scripta feruntur, filius erat
Carpocratis, et matris Alexandriæ nomine, ex patre quidem Alexandrinus,
ex matre vero Cephalleneus. Vixit autem solum septemdecim annos, et
Samæ, quæ est urbs Cephalleniæ, ut deus est honore affectus. Quo
in loco templum ex ingentibus lapidibus, altaria, delubra, museum,
ædificatum est et consecratum; et cum est nova luna, convenientes
Cephallenei, diem natalem, quo in deos relatus est Epiphanes,
sacrificant, libantque, et convivantur, et hymnos canunt. A patre autem
didicit et orbem disciplinarum et Platonis philosophiam. Fuit autem
princeps monadicæ[269] cognitionis. A quo etiam profluxit hæresis
eorum, qui nunc sunt, Carpocratianorum. Is ergo dicit in libro _De
justitia_, “Justitiam Dei esse quamdam cum æqualitate communionem.
Æquale quidem certe cœlum undequaque extensum totam terram cingit. Et
nox ex æquo stellas omnes ostendit; et diei auctorem et lucis patrem,
solem, Deus ex alto æqualem effudit omnibus, qui possunt videre (illi
autem omnes communiter respiciunt), quoniam non discernit divitem
vel pauperem vel populi principem, insipientes et sapientes, feminas
et masculos, liberos, servos. Sed neque secus facit in brutis. Cum
autem omnibus animantibus æque ipsum communem effuderit, bonis et
malis justitiam suam confirmat, cum nemo possit plus habere, neque
auferre a proximo, ut ipse illius lucem habeat duplicatam. Sol facit
omnibus animantibus communia exoriri nutrimenta, communi justitia ex
æquo data omnibus: et ad ea, quæ sunt hujusmodi, similiter se habet
genus boum, ut boves; et suum, ut sues; et ovium, ut oves; et reliqua
omnia. Justitia enim in iis apparet esse communitas. Deinde per
communitatem omnia similiter secundum sua genera seminantur, et commune
nutrimentum editur humi pascentibus jumentis omnibus, et omnibus ex
æquo; ut quod nulla lege circumscriptum sit, sed ejus, qui donat,
jubentis suppeditatione, convenienter justeque adsit omnibus. Sed
neque generationi posita est lex, esset enim jamdiu abolita: ex æquo
autem seminant et generant, habentia innatam a justitia communionem:
ex æquo communiter omnibus oculum ad videndum, creator et pater
omnium, sua justitia legem ferens, præbuit, non discernens feminam a
masculo, non id quod est rationis particeps, ab experte rationis, et,
ut semel dicam, nullum a nullo; sed æqualitate et communitate visum
similiter dividens, uno jussu omnibus est largitus. Leges autem,
inquit, hominum, cum ignorationem castigare non possent, contra
leges facere docuerunt: legum enim proprietas dissecuit divinæ legis
communionem et arrodit; non intelligens dictum Apostoli dicentis:
‘Per legem peccatum cognovi.’ Et meum et tuum dicit subiisse per
leges, ut quæ non amplius communiter fruantur (sunt enim communia),
neque terra, neque possessionibus, sed neque matrimonio. Fecit enim
vites communiter omnibus, quæ neque passerem, neque furem abnegant;
et frumentum similiter, et alios fructus. Violata autem communio et
æqualitas, genuit furem pecorum et fructuum. Cum ergo Deus communiter
omnia fecisset homini, et feminam cum masculo communiter conjunxisset,
et omnia similiter animantia conglutinasset, pronuntiavit justitiam,
communionem cum æqualitate. Qui autem sic nati sunt, communionem,
quæ eorum conciliat generationem, abnegaverunt. Et dicit, si unam
ducens habeat, cum omnium possint esse participes, sicut reliqua fecit
animantia.” Hæc cum his verbis dixisset, subjungit rursus his verbis:
“Intensam enim et vehementiorem ingeneravit masculis cupiditatem ad
generum perpetuitatem, quam nec lex, nec mos, nec aliquid aliud potest
abolere: est enim Dei decretum.” Et quomodo amplius hic in nostra
examinetur oratione, cum legem et Evangelium per hæc aperte destruat?
Illa enim dicit: “Non mœchaberis.”[270] Hoc autem dicit: “Quicunque
respicit ad concupiscentiam, jam mœchatus est.”[271] Illud enim: “Non
concupisces,”[272] quod a lege dicitur, ostendit unum esse Deum, qui
prædicatur per legem et prophetas et Evangelium. Dicit enim: “Non
concupisces uxorem proximi tui.” Proximus autem non est Judæus Judæo:
frater enim est et eumdem habet Spiritum; restat ergo, ut propinquum
dicat eum qui est alterius gentis. Quomodo autem non propinquus, qui
aptus est esse Spiritus particeps? Non solum enim Hebræorum, sed etiam
gentium pater est Abraham. Si autem quæ est adulterata, et qui in eam
fornicatus est, capite punitur:[273] clarum est utique præceptum, quod
dicit: “Non concupisces uxorem propinqui tui,” loqui de gentibus: ut
eum quis secundum legem et ab uxore proximi et a sorore abstinuerit,
aperte audiat a Domino: “Ego autem dico, non concupisces.” Additio
autem hujus particulæ, “ego,” majorem præcepti vim ostendit. Quod
autem cum Deo bellum gerat Carpocrates, et Epiphanes etiam in eo, qui
vulgo jactatur, libro _De justitia_, patet ex eo quod subjungit
his verbis: “Hinc ut qui ridiculum dixerit, legislatoris hoc verbum
audiendum est: ‘Non concupisces:’ usque ad id, quod magis ridicule
dicit: ‘Res proximi tui.’ Ipse enim, qui dedit cupiditatem, ut quæ
contineret generationem, jubet eam auferre, cum a nullo eam auferat
animali. Illud autem: ‘Uxorem proximi tui,’ quo communionem cogit
ad proprietatem, dixit adhuc magis ridicule.” Et hæc quidem dogmata
constituunt egregii Carpocratiani. Hos dicunt et aliquos alios
similium malorum æmulatores, ad cœnas convenientes (neque enim dixerim
“agapen” eorum congressionem) viros simul et mulieres, postquam
cibis venerem excitantibus se expleverint, lumine amoto, quod eorum
fornicatoriam hanc justitiam pudore afficiebat, aversa lucerna, coire
quomodo velint, et cum quibus velint: meditatos autem in ejusmodi
“agape” communionem, interdiu jam, a quibus velint mulieribus exigere
Carpocrateæ (divinæ enim nefas est dicere) legis obedientiam. Has
leges, ut sentio, ferre opportuit Carpocratem canum et suum et hircorum
libidinibus. Mihi autem videtur, Platonem quoque male intellexisse, in
_Republica_ dicentem, oportere esse communes omnium uxores: ut
qui diceret eas quidem, quæ nondum nupserant, esse communes eorum, qui
essent petituri, quemadmodum theatrum quoque est commune spectatorum;
esse autem unamquamque uniuscujusque qui præoccupasset, et non amplius
communem esse eam quæ nupsisset. Xanthus autem in iis, quæ scribuntur
_Magica_: “Coeunt autem,” inquit, “magi cum matribus et filiabus:
et fas esse aiunt coire cum sororibus, et communes esse uxores, non vi
et clam, sed utrisque consentientibus, cum velit alter ducere uxorem
alterius.” De his et similibus hæresibus existimo Judam prophetice
dixisse in epistola: “Similiter quidem hi quoque somniantes” (non enim
vigilantes ad veritatem se applicant), usque ad illud: “Et os eorum
loquitur superba.”[274]
CAPUT III.
QUATENUS PLATO ALIIQUE E VETERIBUS PRÆIVERINT
MARCIONITIS ALIISQUE HÆRETICIS, QUI A NUPTIIS
IDEO ABSTINENT QUIA CREATURAM MALAM EXISTIMANT
ET NASCI HOMINES IN PŒNAM OPINANTUR.
Jam vero si et ipse Plato et Pythagorei, sicut etiam postea Marcionitæ,
malam existimarunt esse generationem, longe abfuit, ut communes ipse
poneret uxores. Sed Marcionitæ quidem dicunt malam esse naturam, ex
mala materia, et a justo factam opifice ac Creatore. Qua quidem ratione
nolentes implere mundum, qui factus est a Creatore, volunt abstinere
a nuptiis, resistentes suo Creatori, et contendentes ad bonum, qui
vocavit: sed non ad eum, qui, ut dicunt, Deus est diversis moribus
præditus. Unde cum nihil hic velint relinquere proprium, non sunt ex
destinato animi proposito continentes, sed propter odium conceptum
adversum eum, qui creavit, nolentes iis uti, quæ ab ipso sunt creata.
Sed hi quidem, qui propter impium, quod cum Deo gerunt, bellum,
emoti sunt ab iis cogitationibus, quæ sunt secundum naturam, Dei
longanimitatem contemnentes et benignitatem, etsi nolunt uxorem ducere,
cibis tamen utuntur creatis, et aerem respirant Creatoris, ut qui et
ejus sint opera, et in iis, quæ sunt ejus, permaneant, et inauditam ac
novam quamdam, ut aiunt, annuntiatam audiunt cognitionem, etiamsi hoc
quoque nomine mundi Domino deberent agere gratias, quod hic acceperint
Evangelium. Sed adversus eos quidem, cum de principiis tractabimus,
accuratissime disseremus. Philosophi autem, quorum mentionem fecimus,
a quibus cum malam esse generationem impie didicissent Marcionitæ,
tanquam suo dogmate gloriantur, non eam volunt esse natura malam,
sed anima, quæ veritatem divulgavit. Animam enim, quam esse divinam
fatentur, in hunc mundum deducunt, tanquam in locum supplicii. Oportet
autem animas in corpus immissas expiari ex eorum sententia. Non
convenit autem amplius hoc dogma Marcionistis, sed iis, qui censent
in corpora intrudi, et iis alligari, et quasi ex vase in vas aliud
transfundi animas. Adversus quos fuerit aliud dicendi tempus, quando
de anima tractabimus. Videtur itaque Heraclitus maledictis insequi
generationem: “Quoniam autem,” inquit, “nati volunt vivere, et mortes
habere, vel potius quiescere; filios quoque relinquunt, ut mortes
fiant.” Clarum est autem cum eo convenire Empedoclem quoque dicentem:
Deflevi et luxi, insolitum cernens miser orbem.
Et amplius:
Mortua nam ex vivis fecit, species commutans.
Et rursus:
Hei mihi! quam infelix hominum genus atque misellum!
Litibus ex quantis prognati et planctibus estis?
Dicit autem Sibylla quoque:
Mortales homines, caro qui tantum, et nihil estis;
Similiter atque poeta, qui scribit:
Haud homine infelix tellus mage quidquam alit alma.
Quin etiam Theognis malam ostendit esse generationem, dicens hoc modo:
Optima non nasci res est mortalibus ægris,
Nec nitidi solis luce micante frui,
Extemplo aut natum portas invadere Ditis.
His autem consequentia scribit quoque Euripides, poeta tragicus:
Nam nos decebat convenire publice, et
Deflere natum, quod tot ingreditur mala:
Ast mortuum, cuique jam quies data est,
Efferre lætis gratulationibus.
Et rursus similia sic dicit:
Quis novit, an vivere quidem siet mori,
Siet mori autem vivere?
Idem quod hi, videtur Herodotus quoque inducere dicentem Solonem: “O
Crœse, quivis homo nihil est aliud quam calamitas.” Jam vero ejus de
Cleobide et Bitone fabula plane nihil aliud vult, quam vituperare
generationem, laudare autem mortem.
_Et qualis folii, est hominum generatio talis_, ait Homerus. Plato
autem in _Cratylo_, Orpheo tribuit eum sermonem, quo anima puniri in
corpore dicitur: “Nempe corpus hoc animæ σῆμα,” _monumentum_, “quidam
esse tradunt: quasi ipsa præsenti in tempore sit sepulta; atque etiam
quia anima per corpus σημαίνει,” _significat_, “quæcunque significare
potest: ideo σῆμα jure vocari. Videatur mihi præterea Orpheus nomen
hoc ob id potissimum imposuisse, quod anima in corpore hoc delictorum
luat pœnas.” Operæ pretium est autem meminisse etiam eorum, quæ dicit
Philolaus. Sic enim dicit hic Pythagoreus: “Testantur autem veteres
quoque theologi et vates, ad luenda supplicia animam conjunctam esse
corpori, et in eo tanquam in _monumento_ esse sepultam.” Quin etiam
Pindarus de iis, quæ sunt in Eleusine, mysteriis loquens, infert:
“Beatus, qui cum illa sub terra viderit communia, novit quidem vitæ
finem, novit autem datum Jovis imperium.” Et Plato similiter in
_Phædone_ non veretur hoc modo scribere: “Porro autem hi, qui nobis
hæc constituerunt mysteria, non aliquid aliud,” usque ad: “Et cum diis
habitatione.” Quid vero, cum dicit: “Quandiu corpus habuerimus, et
anima nostra cum ejusmodi malo admista fuerit, illud, quod desideramus,
nunquam satis assequemur?” annon significat generationem esse causam
maximorum malorum? Jam vero in _Phædone_ quoque testatur: “Evenit enim,
ut qui recte philosophantur, non animadvertantur ab aliis in nullam
rem aliam suum studium conferre, quam ut emoriantur, et sint mortui.”
Et rursus: “Ergo hic quoque philosophi anima corpus maxime vilipendit,
et ab eo fugit, ipsa autem secum seorsim esse quærit.” Nunquid autem
consentit cum divino Apostolo, qui dicit: “Infelix ego homo, quis me
liberabit a corpore mortis hujus?”[275] nisi forte eorum consensionem,
qui trahuntur in vitium, “corpus mortis” dicit tropice. Atque coitum
quoque, qui est principium generationis, vel ante Marcionem videtur
Plato aversari in primo _De republica_: ubi cum laudasset senectutem,
subjungit: “Velim scias, quod quo magis me deficiunt aliæ,” nempe
corporis, “voluptates, eo magis confabulandi cupiditas, et voluptas,
quam ex ea re capio, augetur.” Et cum rei venereæ injecta esset mentio:
“Bona verba quæso,” inquit: “ego vero lubenter isthinc, tanquam
ab insano aliquo et agresti domino, effugi.” Rursus in _Phædone_,
vituperans generationem, dicit: “Quæ ergo de his in arcanis dicitur,
hæc est oratio, quod nos homines sumus in custodia aliqua.” Et rursus:
“Qui autem pie præ cæteris vixisse inveniuntur, hi sunt, qui ex his
terrenis locis, tanquam e carcere, soluti atque liberati, ad puram in
altioribus locis habitationem transcendunt.” Sed tamen quamvis ita se
habeat, recte a Deo mundum administrari existimat; unde dicit: “Non
oportet autem seipsum solvere, nec effugere.” Et ut paucis dicam, non
dedit Marcioni occasionem, ut malam existimaret materiam, cum ipse pie
de mundo hæc dixerit: “Ab eo enim, qui ipsum construxit, habet omnia
bona: a priori autem deformitate incommoda et injusta omnia, quæ
intra cœlum nascuntur, mundus ipse sustinet, et animantibus inserit.”
Adhuc autem subjungit manifestius: “Cujus quidem defectus est corporea
temperatura, priscæ naturæ comes; nam quiddam valde deforme erat, et
ordinis expers, priusquam præsenti ornatu decoraretur.” Nihilominus
autem in _Legibus_ quoque deflet humanum genus, sic dicens: “Dii autem
hominum genus laboribus naturæ pressum miserati, remissiones ipsis
statuerunt laborum, solemnium videlicit festorum vicissitudines.” Et
in _Epinomide_ persequitur etiam causas, cur sint hominum miserti, et
sic dicit: “Ab initio ipsum esse genitum, est grave cuilibet animanti:
primum quidem, quod eorum constitutionis sint participes, quæ in utero
gestantur; deinde ipsum nasci, et præterea nutriri et erudiri, per
innumerabiles labores universa fiunt, ut omnes dicimus.” Quid vero?
annon Heraclitus generationem quoque dicit esse mortem? Pythagoras
autem similiter atque Socrates in _Gorgia_, cum dicit: “Mors est,
quæcunque experrecti videmus: quæcunque autem dormientes, somnus.”
Sed de his quidem satis. Quando autem tractabimus de principiis, tunc
et has repugnantias, quas et innuunt philosophi, et suis dogmatibus
decernunt Marcionistæ, considerabimus. Cæterum satis dilucide ostensas
esse existimo, externorum alienorumque dogmatum occasiones Marcionem
ingrate et indocte accepisse a Platone. Nobis autem procedat sermo de
continentia. Dicebamus autem Græcos adversus liberorum generationem
multa dixisse, incommoda, quæ comitari eam solent, respicientes: quæ
cum impie excepissent Marcionitæ, impie fuisse ingratos in Creatorem.
Dicit enim tragœdia:
Non nascier præstat homines, quam nascier.
Dein filios acerbis eum doloribus
Enitor, ast enixa, si stolidi sient,
Afflictor, intuendo quod servo malos,
Bonosque perdo. Si bonos servo, tamen
Mihi misellum cor timore liquitur.
Quid hic boni ergo est? unicam annon sufficit
Effundere animam, nisi crucieris amplius?
Et adhuc similiter:
Vetus stat mihi persuasio,
Plantare filios numquam hominem oportuit,
Dum cernit ad quot gignimus natos mala.
In his autem, quæ deinceps sequuntur, malorum quoque causam evidenter
reducit ad principia, sic dicens:
O! miser natus, malisque obnoxius
Editus, homo, es, vitæ tuæque miseriam
Hinc inchoasti: cœpit æther omnibus
Spiramen unde alens tradere mortalibus;
Mortalis ægre ne feras mortalia.
Rursus autem his similia tradit:
Mortalium omnium beatus non fuit
Quisquam, molestia et nemo carens fuit.
Et deinde rursus:
Heu! quanta, quotque hominibus eveniunt mala,
Quam varia, quorum terminus nullus datur.
Et adhuc similiter:
Nemo beatus semper est mortalium.
Hac itaque ratione dicunt etiam Pythagoreos abstinere a rebus venereis.
Mihi autem contra videntur uxores quidem ducere, ut liberos suscipiant,
velle autem a venerea voluptate se continere post susceptos liberos.
Proinde mystice uti fabis prohibent, non quod sit legumen flatum
excitans, et concoctu difficile, et somnia efficiat turbulenta; neque
quod hominis capiti sit similis, ut vult ille versiculus:
Idem est namque fabam atque caput corrodere patris;
sed potius quod fabæ, si comedantur, steriles efficiant mulieres.
Theophrastus quidem certe in quinto libro _De causis plantarum_,
fabarum siliquas, si ponantur ad radices arborum quæ nuper sunt
plantatæ, refert plantas exsiccare. Quinetiam gallinæ domesticæ, quæ
eas assidue comedunt, efficiuntur steriles.
CAPUT IV.
QUIBUS PRÆTEXTIBUS UTANTUR HÆRETICI AD OMNIS
GENERIS LICENTIAM ET LIBIDINEM EXERCENDAM.
Ex iis autem, qui ab hæresi ducuntur, Marcionis quidem Pontici fecimus
mentionem, qui propter certamen, quod adversus Creatorem suscepit,
mundanarum rerum usum recusat. Ei autem continentiæ causa est, si
modo est ea dicenda continentia, ipse Creator, cui se adversari
existimans gigas iste cum Deo pugnans, est invitus continens, dum in
creationem et Dei opus invehitur. Quod si usurpent vocem Domini, qui
dicit Philippo: “Sine mortuos sepelire mortuos suos, tu autem sequere
me:”[276] at illud considerent, quod similem carnis formationem fert
quoque Philippus, non habens cadaver pollutum. Quomodo ergo cum carnem
haberet, non habuit cadaver? Quoniam surrexit ex monumento, Domino
ejus vitia morte afficiente, vixit autem Christo. Meminimus autem
nefariæ quoque ex Carpocratis sententia mulierum communionis. Cum
autem de dicto Nicolai loqueremur, illud prætermisimus: Cum formosam,
aiunt, haberet uxorem, et post Servatoris assumptionem ei fuisset ab
apostolis exprobrata zelotypia, in medium adducta muliere, permisit cui
vellet eam nubere. Aiunt enim hanc actionem illi voci consentaneam,
quæ dicit, quod “carne abuti oporteat.” Proinde ejus factum et dictum
absolute et inconsiderate sequentes, qui ejus hæresim persequuntur,
impudenter effuseque fornicantur. Ego autem audio Nicolaum quidem
nulla unquam alia, quam ea, quæ ei nupserat, uxore usum esse; et ex
illius liberis, filias quidem consenuisse virgines, filium autem
permansisse incorruptum. Quæ cum ita se habeant, vitii erat depulsio
atque expurgatio, in medium apostolorum circumactio uxoris, cujus
dicebatur laborare zelotypia: et continentia a voluptatibus, quæ
magno studio parari solent, docebat illud, “abuti carne,” hoc est,
exercere carnem. Neque enim, ut existimo, volebant, convenienter
Domini præcepto, “duobus dominis servire,”[277] voluptati et Deo.
Dicunt itaque Matthiam quoque sic docuisse: “Cum carne quidem pugnare,
et ea uti, nihil ei impudicum largiendo ad voluptatem; augere autem
animam per fidem et cognitionem.” Sunt autem, qui etiam publicam
venerem pronuntiant mysticam communionem; et sic ipsum nomen contumelia
afficiunt. Sicut enim operari eum dicimus, tum qui malum aliquod
facit, tum etiam qui bonum, idem nomen utrique tribuentes; haud aliter
“communio” usurpari solet; nam bona quidem est in communicatione tum
pecuniæ, tum nutrimenti et vestitus: illi autem quamlibet veneream
conjunctionem impie vocaverunt “communionem.” Dicunt itaque ex iis
quemdam, cum ad nostram virginem vultu formosam accessisset, dixisse:
Scriptum est: “Da omni te petenti:”[278] illam autem honeste admodum
respondisse, ut quæ non intelligeret hominis petulantiam: At tu matrem
conveni de matrimonio. O impietatem! etiam voces Domini ementiuntur
isti intemperantiæ communicatores, fratresque libidinis, non solum
probrum philosophiæ, sed etiam totius vitæ; qui veritatem, quantum in
eis situm est, adulterant ac corrumpunt, vel potius defodiunt; homines
infelicissimi carnalem concubitus communionem consecrant, et hanc ipsos
putant ad regnum Dei perducere. Ad lupanaria ergo deducit hæc communio,
et cum eis communicaverint sues et hirci, maximaque apud illos in spe
fuerint meretrices, quæ in prostibulis præsto sunt, et volentes omnes
admittunt. “Vos autem non sic Christum didicistis, siquidem ipsum
audiistis, et in eo docti estis, quemadmodum est veritas in Christo
Jesu, ut deponatis quæ sunt secundum veterem conversationem, veterem
hominem, qui corrumpitur secundum desideria deceptionis. Renovamini
autem spiritu mentis vestræ, et induatis novum hominem, qui creatus
est secundum Deum in justitia et sanctitate veritatis,”[279] ad Dei
similitudinem. “Efficimini ergo Dei imitatores, ut filii dilecti,
et ambulate in dilectione, sicut Christus quoque dilexit nos, et
tradidit seipsum pro nobis oblationem et hostiam Deo in odorem
suavitatis. Fornicatio autem, et omnis immunditia, vel avaritia, ne
nominetur quidem in vobis, sicut decet sanctos, et turpitudo, et
stultiloquium.”[280] Etenim docens Apostolus meditari vel ipsa voce
esse castos, scribit: “Hoc enim scitote, quod omnis fornicator,” et
cætera, usque ad illud: “Magis autem arguite.”[281] Effluxit autem
eis dogma ex quodam apocrypho libro. Atque adeo afferam dictionem,
quæ mater eorum intemperantiæ et origo est: et sive ipsi hujus libri
scriptores se fateantur, en eorum vecordiam, licet Deo eum falso
ascribant libidinis intemperantia ducti: sive ab aliis, eos perverse
audientes, hoc præclarum dogma acceperint, sic porro se habent ejus
verba: “Unum erant omnia: postquam autem ejus unitati visum est non
esse solam, exiit ab eo inspiratio, et cum ea iniit communionem, et
fecit dilectum. Exhinc autem egressa est ab ipso inspiratio, cum qua
cum communionem iniisset, fecit potestates, quæ nec possunt videri
nec audiri,” usque ad illud, “unamquamque in nomine proprio.” Si enim
hi quoque, sicut Valentiniani, spiritales posuissent communiones,
suscepisset forte aliquis eorum opinionem: carnalis autem libidinis
communionem ad sanctam inducere prophetiam, est ejus qui desperat
salutem. Talia etiam statuunt Prodici quoque asseclæ, qui seipsos
falso nomine vocant Gnosticos: seipsos quidem dicentes esse natura
filios primi Dei; ea vero nobilitate et libertate abutentes, vivunt
ut volunt; volunt autem libidinose; se nulla re teneri arbitrati,
ut “domini sabbati,” et qui sint quovis genere superiores, filii
regales. Regi autem, inquiunt, lex scripta non est. Primum quidem,
quod non faciant omnia quæ volunt: multa enim eos prohibebunt, etsi
cupiant et conentur. Quinetiam quæ faciunt, non faciunt ut reges,
sed ut mastigiæ: clanculum enim committunt adulteria, timentes ne
deprehendantur, et vitantes ne condemnentur, et metuentes ne supplicio
afficiantur. Quomodo etiam res est libera, intemperantia et turpis
sermo? “Omnis enim, qui peccat, est servus,” inquit Apostolus.[282]
Sed quomodo vitam ex Deo instituit, qui seipsum præbuit dedititium
cuivis concupiscentiæ? cum dixerit Dominus: “Ego autem dico: Ne
concupiscas.” Vultne autem aliquis sua sponte peccare, et decernere
adulteria esse committenda, voluptatibusque et deliciis se explendum,
et aliorum violanda matrimonia, cum aliorum etiam, qui inviti peccant,
misereamur? Quod si in externum mundum venerint, qui in alieno non
fuerint fideles, verum non habebunt. Afficit autem hospes aliquis cives
contumelia, et eis injuriam facit; et non potius ut peregrinus, utens
necessariis, vivit, cives non offendens? Quomodo autem, cum eadem
faciant, ac ii, quos gentes odio habent, quod legibus obtemperare
nolint; nempe iniqui, et incontinentes, et avari, et adulteri, dicunt
se solos Deum nosse? Oporteret enim eos, cum in alienis adsunt, recte
vivere, ut revera regiam indolem ostenderent. Jam vero et humanos
legislatores, et divinam legem habent sibi infensam, cum inique et
præter leges vivere instituerint. Is certe, qui scortatorem “confodit,”
a Deo pius esse ostenditur in Numeris. “Et si dixerimus,” inquit
Joannes in epistola, “quod societatem habemus cum eo,” nempe Deo, “et
in tenebris ambulamus, mentimur, et veritatem non facimus. Si autem
in luce ambulamus, sicut et ipse est in luce, societatem habemus
cum ipso, et sanguis Jesu filii ejus emundat nos a peccato”[283]
Quomodo ergo sunt hi hujus mundi hominibus meliores, qui hæc faciunt,
et vel pessimis hujus mundi sunt similes? sunt enim, ut arbitror,
similes natura, qui sunt factis similes. Quibus autem se esse censent
nobilitate superiores, eos debent etiam superare moribus, ut vitent
ne includantur in carcere. Revera enim, ut dixit Dominus: “Nisi
abundaverit justitia vestra plus quam scribarum et Pharisæorum, non
intrabitis in regnum Dei.”[284] De abstinentia autem a cibis ostenditur
a Daniele.[285] Ut semel autem dicam, de obedientia dicit psallens
David: “In quo diriget junior viam suam?”[286] Et statim audit: “In
custodiendo sermones tuos in toto corde.” Et dicit Jeremias: “Hæc
autem dicit Dominus: Per vias gentium ne ambulaveritis.”[287] Hinc
moti aliqui alii, pusilli et nullius pretii, dicunt formatum fuisse
hominem a diversis potestatibus: et quæ sunt quidem usque ad umbilicum
esse artis divinioris; quæ autem subter, minoris; qua de causa coitum
quoque appetere. Non animadvertunt autem, quod superiores quoque
partes nutrimentum appetunt, et quibusdam libidinantur. Adversantur
autem Christo quoque, qui dixit Pharisæis, eumdem Deum et “internum”
nostrum et “externum” fecisse hominem.[288] Quinetiam appetitio non
est corporis, etsi fiat per corpus. Quidam alii, quos etiam vocamus
Antitactas, hoc est, “adversarios” et repugnantes, dicunt quod Deus
quidem universorum noster est natura pater, e omnia quæcunque fecit,
bona sunt; unus autem quispiam ex iis, qui ab ipso facti sunt,
seminatis zizaniis, malorum naturam generavit: quibus etiam nos omnes
implicavit, ut nos efficeret Patri adversarios. Quare nos etiam ipsi
huic adversamur ad Patrem ulciscendum, contra secundi voluntatem
facientes. Quoniam ergo hic dixit: “Non mœchaberis;” nos, inquiunt,
mœchamur, ut ejus mandatum dissolvamus. Quibus responderimus quoque,
quod pseudoprophetas, et eos qui veritatem simulant, ex operibus
cognosci accepimus: si male audiunt autem vestra opera, quomodo adhuc
dicetis vos veritatem tenere? Aut enim nullum est malum, et non est
utique dignus reprehensione is, quem vos insimulatis, ut qui Deo sit
adversatus, neque fuit alicujus mali effector; una enim cum malo arbor
quoque interimitur: aut si est malum ac consistit, dicant nobis, quid
dicunt esse ea, quæ data sunt, præcepta, de justitia, de continentia,
de tolerantia, de patientia, et iis, quæ sunt hujusmodi, bona an mala?
et si fuerit quidem malum præceptum, quod plurima prohibet facere
turpia, adversus seipsum legem feret vitium, ut seipsum dissolvat,
quod quidem non potest fieri; sin autem bonum, cum bonis adversentur
præceptis, se bono adversari, et mala facere confitentur. Jam vero
ipse quoque Servator, cui soli censent esse parendum, odio habere, et
maledictis insequi prohibuit: et, “Cum adversario,” inquit, “vadens,
ejus amicus conare discedere.”[289] Aut ergo Christi quoque negabunt
suasionem, adversantes adversario: aut, si sint amici, contra eum
certamen suscipere nolunt. Quid vero? an nescitis, viri egregii
(loquor enim tanquam præsentibus), quod cum præceptis, quæ se recte
habent, pugnantes, propriæ saluti resistitis? Non enim ea, quæ sunt
utiliter edicta, sed vos ipsos evertitis. Et Dominus: “Luceant” quidem,
inquit, “bona vestra opera;”[290] vos autem libidines et intemperantias
vestras manifestas redditis. Et alioqui si vultis legislatoris præcepta
dissolvere, quanam de causa, illud quidem: “Non mœchaberis;” et hoc:
“Stuprum puero non inferes,” et quæcunque ad continentiam conferunt,
dissolvere conamini, propter vestram intemperantiam: non dissolvitis
autem, quæ ab ipso fit, hiemem, ut media adhuc hieme æstatem faciatis:
neque terram navigabilem, mare autem pedibus pervium, facitis, ut qui
historias composuerunt, barbarum Xerxem dicunt voluisse facere? Cur
vero non omnibus præceptis repugnatis? Nam cum ille dicat; “Crescite
et multiplicamini,”[291] oporteret vos, qui adversamini, nullo modo
uti coitu. Et cum dixit: “Dedi vobis omnia ad vescendum”[292] et
fruendum, vos nullo frui oportuit. Quinetiam eo dicente: “Oculum
pro oculo,”[293] oportuit vos decertationem contraria non rependere
decertatione. Et cum furem jusserit reddere “quadruplum,”[294] oportuit
vos furi aliquid etiam addere. Rursus vero similiter, cum præcepto:
“Diliges Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo,”[295] repugnetis, oportuit nec
universorum quidem Deum diligere. Et rursus, cum dixerit: “Non facies
sculptile neque fusile,”[296] consequens erat ut etiam sculptilia
adoraretis. Quomodo ergo non impie facitis, qui Creatori quidem, ut
dicitis, resistitis; quæ sunt autem meretricibus et adulteris similia,
sectamini? Quomodo autem non sentitis vos eum majorem facere, quem pro
imbecillo habetis; si quidem id fit, quod hic vult; non autem illud,
quod voluit bonus? contra enim ostenditur quodam modo a vobis ipsis,
imbecillum esse, quem vestrum patrem dicitis. Recensent etiam ex
quibusdam locis propheticis decerptas dictiones, et male consarcinatas,
quæ allegorice dicta sunt tanquam recto ductu et citra figuram dicta
sumentes. Dicunt enim scriptum esse: “Deo restiterunt, et salvi facti
sunt:”[297] illi autem “Deo impudenti” addunt; et hoc eloquium tanquam
consilium præceptum accipiunt: et hoc ad salutem conferre existimant,
quod Creatori resistant. At “impudenti” quidem “Deo,” non est scriptum.
Si autem sic quoque habeat, eum, qui vocatus est diabolus, intelligite
impudentem: vel quod hominem calumniis impetat, vel quod accuset
peccatores, vel quod sit apostata. Populus ergo, de quo hoc dictum
est, cum castigaretur propter sua peccata, ægre ferentes et gementes,
his verbis, quæ dicta sunt, murmurabant, quod aliæ quidem gentes cum
inique se gerant non puniantur, ipsi autem in singulis vexentur; adeo
ut Jeremias quoque dixerit: “Cur via impiorum prosperatur?”[298] quod
simile est ei, quod prius allatum est ex Malachia: “Deo restiterunt,
et salvi facti sunt.” Nam prophetæ divinitus inspirati, non solum quæ
a Deo audierint, se loqui profitentur; sed et ipsi etiam solent ea,
quæ vulgo jactantur a populo, exceptionis modo, edicere, et tanquam
quæstiones ab hominibus motas referre: cujusmodi est illud dictum,
cujus mentio jam facta est. Nunquid autem ad hos verba sua dirigens,
scribit Apostolus in Epistola ad Romanos: “Et non sicut blasphemamur,
et sicut dicunt aliqui nos dicere: Faciamus mala, ut eveniant bona,
quorum justa est damnatio?”[299] Ii sunt, qui inter legendum tono vocis
pervertunt Scripturas ad proprias voluptates, et quorumdam accentuum
et punctorum transpositione, quæ prudenter et utiliter præcepta sunt,
ad suas trahunt delicias. “Qui irritatis Deum sermonibus vestris,”
inquit Malachias, “et dicitis, in quonam eum irritavimus? Dum vos
dicitis: Quicunque facit malum, bonus est coram Domino, et ipse in eis
complacuit; et ubi est Deus justitiæ?”[300]
CAPUT V.
DUO GENERA HÆRETICORUM NOTAT: PRIUS ILLORUM QUI
OMNIA OMNIBUS LICERE PRONUNTIANT, QUOS REFUTAT.
Ne ergo hunc locum ungue amplius fodicantes, plurium absurdarum
hæresium meminerimus; nec rursus dum in singulis adversus unamquamque
dicere necesse habemus, propterea pudore afficiamur, et nimis prolixos
hos faciamus commentarios, age in duo dividentes omnes hæreses,
eis respondeamus. Aut enim docent indiscrete vivere: aut modum
excedentes, per impietatem et odium profitentur continentiam. Prius
autem tractandum est de prima parte. Quod si quodlibet vitæ genus
licet eligere, tum eam scilicet etiam licet, quæ est continens: et
si electus tute poterit quodlibet vitæ genus sectari, manifestum est
eam, quæ temperanter et secundum virtutem agitur, longe tutissimam
esse. Nam cum “domino sabbati,” etiamsi intemperanter vivat, nulla
ratio reddenda sit, multo magis qui vitam moderate et temperate
instituit, nulli erit rationi reddendæ obnoxius. “Omnia enim licent,
sed non omnia expediunt,”[301] ait Apostolus. Quod si omnia licent,
videlicet moderatum quoque esse et temperantem. Quemadmodum ergo is est
laudandus, qui libertate sua usus est ad vivendum ex virtute: ita multo
magis qui dedit nobis liberam nostri potestatem, et concessit vivere ut
vellemus, est venerandus et adorandus, quod non permiserit, ut nostra
electio et vitatio cuiquam necessario serviret. Si est autem uterque
æque securus, et qui incontinentiam, et qui continentiam elegerit, non
est tamen ex æquo honestum et decorum. Qui enim impegit in voluptates,
gratificatur corpori: temperans autem animam corporis dominam liberat
a perturbationibus. Et si dicant nos “vocatos fuisse in libertatem,
solummodo ne præbeamus libertatem, in occasionem carni,”[302] ex
sententia Apostoli. Si autem cupiditati est obsequendum, et quæ
probrosa est et turpis vita tanquam indifferens est eligenda, ut ipsi
dicunt; aut cupiditatibus est omnino parendum, et si hoc ita est,
facienda sunt quævis impudicissima et maxime nefaria, eos sequendo,
qui nobis persuadent: aut sunt aliquæ declinandæ cupiditates, et non
est amplius vivendum indifferenter, neque est impudenter serviendum
vilissimis et abjectissimis nostris partibus, ventri et pudendis,
dum cupiditate ducti nostro blandimur cadaveri. Nutritur enim et
vivificatur cupiditas, dum ei voluptates ministrantur: quemadmodum
rursus si impediatur et interturbetur, flaccescit. Quomodo autem fieri
potest, ut qui victus est a voluptatibus corporis, Domino assimiletur,
aut Dei habeat cognitionem? Omnis enim voluptatis principium est
cupiditas: cupiditas autem est molestia et sollicitudo, quæ propter
egestatem aliquid appetit. Quare nihil aliud mihi videntur, qui hanc
vitæ rationem suscipiunt, quam quod dicitur,
Ultra ignominiam sentire dolores;
ut qui malum a se accersitum, nunc et in posterum eligant. Si ergo
“omnia licerent,” nec timendum esset ne a spe excideremus propter
malas actiones, esset fortasse eis aliquis prætextus, cur male
viverent et miserabiliter. Quoniam autem vita beata nobis ostensa est
per præcepta, quam oportet omnes sequentes, nec aliquid eorum, quæ
dicta sunt, perperam intelligentes, nec eorum, quæ convenit, aliquid,
etsi sit vel minimum, contemnentes, sequi quo logos ducit; quia, si
ab eo aberraverimus, in malum immortale incidamus necesse est; si
divinam autem Scripturam secuti fuerimus, per quam ingrediuntur,
qui crediderunt, ut Domino, quoad fieri potest, assimilentur, non
est vivendum indifferenter, sed pro viribus mundos esse oportet a
voluptatibus et cupiditatibus, curaque est gerenda animæ, qua apud
solum Deum perseverandum est. Mens enim, quæ est munda et ab omni
vitio libera, est quodammodo apta ad potestatem Dei suscipiendam,
cum divina in ea assurgat imago: “Et quicunque habet hanc spem in
Domino, seipsum,” inquit, “mundum castumque facit, quatenus ille
est castus.”[303] “Ut ii autem accipiant Dei cognitionem, qui adhuc
ducuntur ab affectibus, minime potest fieri: ergo nec ut finem
assequantur, cum nullam habeant Dei cognitionem. Et eum quidem, qui
hunc finem non assequitur, accusare videtur Dei ignoratio; ut Deus
autem ignoretur, efficit vitæ institutio. Omnino enim fieri non
potest, ut quis simul sit et scientia præditus, et blandiri corpori
non erubescat. Neque enim potest unquam convenire, quod voluptas
sit bonum, cum eo, quod bonum sit solum pulchrum et honestum: vel
etiam cum eo, quod solus sit pulcher Dominus, et solus bonus Deus,
et solus amabilis. “In Christo autem circumcisi estis, circumcisione
non manu facta, in exspoliatione corporis carnis, in circumcisione
Christi.[304] Si ergo cum Christo consurrexistis, quæ sursum sunt
quærite, quæ sursum sunt sapite, non quæ sunt super terram. Mortui enim
estis, et vita vestra absconsa est cum Christo in Deo;” non autem ea,
quam exercent, fornicatio. “Mortificate ergo membra, quæ sunt super
terram, fornicationem, immunditiam, passionem, desiderium, propter quæ
venit ira Dei. Deponant ergo ipsi quoque iram, indignationem, vitium,
maledictum, turpem sermonem ex ore suo, exuentes veterem hominem cum
concupiscentiis, et induentes novum, qui renovatur in agnitionem, ad
imaginem ejus, qui creavit ipsum.”[305] Vitæ enim institutio aperte eos
arguit, qui mandata novere: qualis enim sermo, talis est vita. Arbor
autem cognoscitur ex fructibus, non ex floribus et foliis ac ramis.
Cognitio ergo est ex fructu et vitæ institutione, non ex sermone et
flore. Non enim nudum sermonem dicimus esse cognitionem, sed quamdam
divinam scientiam, et lucem illam, quæ innata animæ ex præceptorum
obedientia, omnia, quæ per generationem oriuntur, manifesta facit,
et hominem instruit, ut seipsum cognoscat, et qua ratione compos
fieri possit, edocet. Quod enim oculus est in corpore, hoc est in
mente cognitio. Neque dicant libertatem, qua quis voluptati servit,
sicut ii, qui bilem dicunt dulcem. Nos enim didicimus libertatem, qua
Dominus noster nos liberat a voluptatibus, et a cupiditatibus, et aliis
perturbationibus solvens. “Qui dicit: Novi Dominum, et mandata ejus non
servat, mendax est, et in eo veritas non est,”[306] ait Joannes.
CAPUT VI.
SECUNDUM GENUS HÆRETICORUM AGGREDITUR, ILLORUM
SCILICET QUI EX IMPIA DE DEO OMNIUM CONDITORE
SENTENTIA, CONTINENTIAM EXERCENT.
Adversus autem alterum genus hæreticorum, qui speciose per continentiam
impie se gerunt, tum in creaturam, tum in sanctum Opificem, qui est
solus Deus omnipotens; et dicunt non esse admittendum matrimonium
et liberorum procreationem, nec in mundum esse inducendos alios
infelices futuros, nec suppeditandum morti nutrimentum, hæc sunt
opponenda: primum quidem illud Joannis: “Et nunc antichristi multi
facti sunt, unde scimus quod novissima hora est. Ex nobis exierunt,
sed non erant ex nobis. Nam si fuissent ex nobis, permansissent utique
nobiscum.”[307] Deinde sunt etiam evertendi, et dissolvenda, quæ ab eis
afferuntur, hoc modo: “Salomæ interroganti, quousque vigebit mors,” non
quasi vita esset mala, et mala creatura, “Dominus, Quoadusque, inquit,
vos mulieres paritis,” sed quasi naturalem docens consequentiam: ortum
enim omnino sequitur interitus. Vult ergo lex quidem nos a deliciis
omnique probro et dedecore educere. Et hic est ejus finis, ut nos ab
injustitia ad justitiam deducamur, honesta eligendo matrimonia, et
liberorum procreationem, bonamque vitæ institutionem. Dominus autem
“non venit ad solvendam legem, sed ad implendam:”[308] ad implendam
autem, non ut cui aliquid deesset, sed quod legis prophetiæ per ejus
adventum completæ fuerint. Nam recta vitæ institutio, iis etiam,
qui juste vixerunt ante legem, per logon prædicabatur. Vulgus ergo
hominum, quod non novit continentiam, corpore vitam degit, sed non
spiritu: sine spiritu autem corpus nihil aliud est quam terra et
cinis. Jam adulterium judicat Dominus ex cogitatione. Quid enim? annon
licet etiam continenter uti matrimonio, et non conari dissolvere,
quod “conjunxit Deus?”[309] “Talia enim docent conjugii divisores,
propter quod nomen probris ac maledictis appetitur inter gentes.
Sceleratum autem dicentes isti esse coitum, qui ipsi quoque suam
essentiam ex coitu accepere, quomodo non fuerint scelerati? Eorum
autem, qui sunt sanctificati, sanctum quoque, ut puto, semen est. Ac
nobis quidem debet esse sanctificatus, non solum spiritus, sed et
mores, et vita, et corpus. Nam quanam ratione dicit Paulus apostolus
esse “sanctificatam mulierem a viro,” aut “virum a muliere?”[310]
Quid est autem, quod Dominus quoque dixit iis, qui interrogabant de
divortio: “An liceat uxorem dimittere, cum Moyses id permiserit?”
“Ad duritiam cordis vestri, inquit, Moyses hæc scripsit. Vos autem
non legistis, quod protoplasto Deus dixit: ‘Eritis duo in carne una?
Quare qui dimittit uxorem, præterquam fornicationis causa, facit eam
mœchari.[311] Sed post resurrectionem, inquit, nec uxorem ducunt, nec
nubunt.’”[312] Etenim de ventre et cibis dictum est: “Escæ ventri,
et venter escis; Deus autem et illum et has destruet;”[313] hos
impetens, qui instar caprorum et hircorum sibi vivendum esse censent,
ne secure ac sine terrore comessent et coirent. Si resurrectionem
itaque receperint, ut ipsi dicunt, et ideo matrimonium infirmant et
abrogant; nec comedant, nec bibant: “destrui” enim “ventrem et cibos,”
dicit Apostolus in resurrectione. Quomodo ergo esuriunt, et sitiunt,
et carnis patiuntur affectiones, et alia, quæ non patietur, qui per
Christum accepit perfectam, quæ speratur, resurrectionem? Quin etiam
ii, qui colunt idola, a cibis et venere abstinent. “Non est” autem,
inquit, “regnum Dei cibus est potus.”[314] Certe magis quoque curæ
est, qui angelos colunt et dæmones, simul a vino et animatis et rebus
abstinere venereis. Quemadmodum autem humilitas est mansuetudo, non
autem afflictio corporis: ita etiam continentia est animæ virtus,
quæ non est in manifesto, sed in occulto. Sunt autem etiam, qui
matrimonium aperte dicunt fornicationem, et decernunt id traditum esse
a diabolo. Dicunt autem gloriosi isti jactatores se imitari Dominum,
qui neque uxorem duxit, neque in mundo aliquid possedit; se magis quam
alii Evangelium intellexisse gloriantes. Eis autem dicit Scriptura:
“Deus superbis resistit, humilibus autem dat gratiam.”[315] Deinde
nesciunt causam cur Dominus uxorem non duxerit. Primum quidem, propriam
sponsam habuit Ecclesiam: deinde vero, nec homo erat communis, ut
opus haberet etiam adjutore aliquo secundum carnem; neque erat ei
necesse procreare filios, qui manet in æternum, et natus est solus
Dei Filius. Hic ipse autem Dominus dicit: “Quod Deus conjunxit, homo
ne separet.”[316] Et rursus: “Sicut autem erat in diebus Noe, erant
nubentes, et nuptui dantes, ædificantes, et plantantes; et sicut erat
in diebus Lot, ita erit adventus Filii hominis.”[317] Et quod hoc non
dicit ad gentes, ostendit, cum subjungit: “Num cum venerit Filius
hominis, inveniet fidem in terra?”[318] Et rursus: “Væ prægnantibus
et lactantibus in illis diebus.”[319] Quanquam hæc quoque dicuntur
allegorice. Propterea nec “tempora” præfiniit, “quæ Pater posuit in sua
potestate,”[320] ut permaneret mundus per generationes. Illud autem:
“Non omnes capiunt verbum hoc: sunt enim eunuchi, qui sic nati sunt;
et sunt eunuchi, qui castrati sunt ab hominibus; et sunt eunuchi,
qui seipsos castrarunt propter regnum cœlorum. Qui potest capere,
capiat;”[321] nesciunt quod, postquam de divortio esset locutus, cum
quidam rogassent: “Si sic sit causa uxoris, non expedit homini uxorem
ducere;” tunc dixit Dominus: “Non omnes capiunt verbum hoc, sed quibus
datum est.”[322] Hoc enim qui rogabant, volebant ex eo scire, an
uxore damnata et ejecta propter fornicationem, concedat aliam ducere.
Aiunt autem athletas quoque non paucos abstinere a venere, propter
exercitationem corporis continentes: quemadmodum Crotoniatem Astylum,
et Crisonem Himeræum. Quinetiam Amœbeus citharœdus, cum recenter
matrimonio junctus esset, a sponsa abstinuit: et Cyrenæus Aristoteles
amantem Laidem solus despexit. Cum meretrici itaque jurasset, se eam
esse in patriam abducturum, si sibi adversus decertantes adversarios
in aliquibus opem tulisset, postquam id perfecisset, lepide a
se dictum jusjurandum exsequens, cum curasset imaginem ejus quam
simillimam depingi, eam Cyrenæ statuit, ut scribit Ister in libro
_De proprietate certaminum_. Quare nec castitas est bonum, nisi
fiat propter delectionem Dei. Jam de iis, qui matrimonium abhorrent,
dicit beatus Paulus: “In novissimis diebus deficient quidam a fide,
attendentes spiritibus erroris, et doctrinis dæmoniorum, prohibentium
nubere, abstinere a cibis.”[323] Et rursus dicit: “Nemo vos seducat
in voluntaria humilitatis religione, et parcimonia corporis.”[324]
Idem autem illa quoque scribit: “Alligatus es uxori? ne quæras
solutionem. Solutus es ab uxore? ne quæras uxorem.”[325] Et rursus:
“Unusquisque autem suam uxorem habeat, ne tentet vos Satanas.”[326]
Quid vero? non etiam justi veteres creaturam cum gratiarum actione
participabant? Aliqui autem etiam liberos susceperunt, continenter
versati in matrimonio. Et Eliæ quidem corvi alimentum afferebant,
panes et carnes. Quinetiam Samuel propheta armum, quem ex iis, quæ
comedisset, reliquerat, allatum, dedit edendum Sauli. Hi autem, qui
se eos dicunt vitæ institutis excellere, cum illorum actionibus ne
poterunt quidem conferri. “Qui” itaque “non comedit, comedentem ne
spernat. Qui autem comedit, eum qui non comedit non judicet: Deus enim
ipsum accepit.”[327] Quin etiam Dominus de seipso dicens: “Venit,”
inquit, “Joannes, nec comedens, nec bibens, et dicunt: Dæmonium habet;
venit Filius hominis comedens et bibens, et dicunt: Ecce homo vorax et
vini potor, amicus publicanorum, et peccator.”[328] An etiam reprobant
apostolos? Petrus enim et Philippus filios procrearunt: Philippus autem
filias quoque suas viris locavit. Et Paulus quidem certe non veretur in
quadam epistola suam appellare “conjugem,” quam non circumferebat, quod
non magno ei esset opus ministerio. Dicit itaque in quadam epistola:
“Non habemus potestatem sororem uxorem circumducendi, sicut et reliqui
apostoli?”[329] Sed hi quidem, ut erat consentaneum, ministerio, quod
divelli non poterat, prædicationi scilicet, attendentes, non ut
uxores, sed ut sorores circumducebant mulieres, quæ una ministraturæ
essent apud mulieres quæ domos custodiebant: per quas etiam in
gynæceum, absque ulla reprehensione malave suspicione, ingredi posset
doctrina Domini. Scimus enim quæcunque de feminis diaconis in altera
ad Timotheum præstantissimus docet Paulus. Atqui hic ipse exclamavit:
“Non est regnum Dei esca et potus:” neque vero abstinentia a vino et
carnibus; “sed justitia, et pax, et gaudium in Spiritu sancto.”[330]
Quis eorum, ovilla pelle indutus, zona pellicea accinctus, circuit ut
Elias? Quis cilicium induit, cætera nudus, et discalceatus, ut Isaias?
vel subligaculum tantum habet lineum, ut Jeremias? Joannis autem
vitæ institutum gnosticum quis imitabitur? Sed sic quoque viventes,
gratias Creatori agebant beati prophetæ. Carpocratis autem justitia,
et eorum, qui æque atque ipse impudicam prosequuntur communionem, hoc
modo dissolvitur; simul enim ac dixerit: “Te petenti des;” subjungit:
“Et eum, qui velit mutuo accipere, ne averseris;”[331] hanc docens
communionem, non autem illam incestam et impudicam. Quomodo autem
fuerit is qui petit et accipit, et is qui mutuatur, si nullus sit
qui habeat et det mutuo? Quid vero? quando dicit Dominus: “Esurivi,
et me pavistis; sitii, et potum mihi dedistis; hospes eram, et me
collegistis; nudus, et me vestiistis;”[332] deinde subjungit: “Quatenus
fecistis uni horum minimorum, mihi fecistis.”[333] Nunquid easdem
quoque tulit leges in Veteri Testamento? “Qui dat mendico, fœneratur
Deo.”[334] Et: “Ne abstinueris a benefaciendo egeno,”[335] inquit. Et
rursus: “Eleemosynæ et fides ne te deficiant,”[336] inquit. “Paupertas”
autem “virum humiliat, ditant autem manus virorum.”[337] Subjungit
autem: “Qui pecuniam suam non dedit ad usuram, fit acceptus.” Et:
“Pretium redemptionis anima, propriæ judicantur divitiæ.”[338] Annon
aperte indicat, quod sicut mundus componitur ex contrariis, nempe ex
calido et frigido, humido et sicco, ita etiam ex iis qui dant, et
ex iis qui accipiunt? Et rursus cum dixit: “Si vis perfectus esse,
vende quæ habes, et da pauperibus,” refellit eum qui gloriabatur quod
“omnia a juventute præcepta servaverat;” non enim impleverat illud:
“Diliges proximum tuum sicut teipsum:”[339] tunc autem cum a Domino
perficeretur, docebatur communicare et impertiri per charitatem.
Honeste ergo non prohibuit esse divitem, sed esse divitem injuste et
inexplebiliter. “Possessio (enim,) quæ cum iniquitate acceleratur,
minor redditur.”[340] “Sunt (enim,) qui seminantes multiplicant, et qui
colligentes minus habent.”[341] De quibus scriptum est: “Dispersit,
dedit pauperibus, justitia ejus manet in sæculum sæculi.”[342] Qui enim
“seminat et plura colligit,” is est, qui per terrenam et temporalem
communicationem ac distributionem, cœlestia acquirit et æterna. Est
autem alius, qui nemini impertit, et incassum “thesauros in terra
colligit, ubi ærugo et tinea destruunt.”[343] De quo scriptum est: “Qui
colligit mercedes, colligit in saccum perforatum.”[344] Hujus “agrum”
Dominus in Evangelio dicet “fuisse fertilem:”[345] deinde cum vellet
fructus reponere, et esset “majora horrea ædificaturus,” sibi dixisse
per prosopopœiam: “Habes bona multa reposita tibi in multos annos, ede,
bibe, lætare: Stulte ergo, inquit, hac nocte animam tuam a te repetunt;
quæ ergo parasti, cujus erunt?”
CAPUT VII.
QUA IN RE CHRISTIANORUM CONTINENTIA EAM QUAM SIBI
VINDICANT PHILOSOPHI ANTECELLAT.
Humana ergo continentia, ea, inquam, quæ est ex sententia philosophorum
Græcorum, profitetur pugnare cum cupiditate, et in factis ei non
inservire; quæ est autem ex nostra sententia continentia, non
concupiscere; non ut quis concupiscens se fortiter gerat, sed ut etiam
a concupiscendo se contineat. Non potest autem ea aliter comparari
continentia, nisi gratia Dei. Et ideo dixit: “Petite, et dabitur
vobis.”[346] Hanc gratiam Moyses quoque accepit, qui indigo corpore
erat indutus, ut quadraginta diebus neque esuriret, neque sitiret.
Quemadmodum autem melius est sanum esse, quam ægrotantem disserere de
sanitate: ita lucem esse, quam loqui de luce; et quæ est ex veritate
continentia, ea quæ docetur a philosophis. Non enim ubi est lux, illic
tenebræ: ubi autem sola insidet cupiditas, etiamsi quiescat a corporea
operatione, at memoria cum eo, quod non est præsens, congreditur.
Generatim autem nobis procedat oratio de matrimonio, nutrimento, et
aliis, ut nihil faciamus ex cupiditate, velimus autem ea sola, quæ
sunt necessaria. Non sumus enim filii cupiditatis, sed voluntatis;
et eum, qui uxorem duxit propter liberorum procreationem, exercere
oportet continentiam, ut ne suam quidem concupiscat uxorem, quam
debet diligere, honesta et moderata voluntate operam dans liberis.
Non enim “carnis curam gerere ad concupiscentias” didicimus; “honeste
autem tanquam in die,” Christo, et Dominica lucida vitæ institutione,
“ambulantes, non in comessationibus et ebrietatibus, non in cubilibus
et impudicitiis, non in litibus et contentionibus.”[347] Verumenimvero
non oportet considerare continentiam in uno solum genere, nempe
in rebus venereis, sed etiam in quibuscunque aliis, quæ luxuriosa
concupiscit anima, non contenta necessariis, sed sollicita de deliciis.
Continentia est pecuniam despicere; voluptatem, possessionem,
spectaculum magno et excelso animo contemnere; os continere, ratione
quæ sunt mala vincere. Jam vero angeli quoque quidam, cum fuissent
incontinentes, victi cupiditate, huc e cœlo deciderunt. Valentinus
autem in Epistola ad Agathopodem: “Cum omnia, inquit, sustinuisset,
erat continens, divinitatem sibi comparavit Jesus; edebat et bibebat
peculiari modo, non reddens cibos; tanta ei inerat vis continentiæ,
ut etiam nutrimentum in eo non interierit, quoniam ipse non habuit
interitum.” Nos ergo propter dilectionem in Dominum, et propter ipsum
honestum, amplectimur continentiam, templum Spiritus sanctificantes.
Honestum enim est, “propter regnum cœlorum seipsum castrare”[348]
ab omni cupiditate, et “emundare conscientiam a mortuis operibus,
ad serviendum Deo viventi.”[349] Qui autem propter odium adversus
carnem susceptum a conjugali conjunctione, et eorum qui conveniunt
ciborum participatione, liberari desiderant, indocti sunt et impii,
et absque ratione continentes, sicut aliæ gentes plurimæ. Brachmanes
quidem certe neque animatum comedunt, neque vinum bibunt; sed aliqui
quidem ex iis quotidie sicut nos cibum capiunt; nonnulli autem ex iis
tertio quoque die, ut ait Alexander Polyhistor in _Indicis_;
mortem autem contemnunt, et vivere nihili faciunt; credunt enim esse
regenerationem: aliqui autem colunt Heculem et Panem. Qui autem ex
Iudis vocantur Σεμνοί, hoc est, _venerandi_, nudi totam vitam
transigunt: ii veritatem exercent, et futura prædicunt, et colunt
quamdam pyramidem, sub qua existimant alicujus dei ossa reposita. Neque
vero Gymnosophistæ, nec qui dicuntur Σεμνοί, utuntur mulieribus, hoc
enim præter naturam et iniquum esse existimant; qua de causa seipsos
castos conservant. Virgines autem sunt etiam mulieres, quæ dicuntur
Σεμναί, hoc est, _venerandæ_. Videntur autem observare cœlestia,
et per eorum significationem quædam futura prædicere.
CAPUT VIII.
LOCA S. SCRIPTURÆ AB HÆRETICIS IN VITUPERIUM MATRIMONII
ADDUCTA EXPLICAT; ET PRIMO VERBA APOSTOLI
ROM. VI. 14, AB HÆRETICORUM PERVERSA
INTERPRETATIONE VINDICAT.
Quoniam autem qui introducunt indifferentiam, paucas quasdam Scripturas
detorquentes, titillanti suæ voluptati eas suffragari existimant;
tum præcipue illam quoque: “Peccatum enim vestri non dominabitur;
non estis enim sub lege, sed sub gratia;”[350] et aliquas alias
hujusmodi, quarum post hæc non est rationi consentaneum ut faciam
mentionem (non enim navem instruo piraticam), age paucis eorum
argumentum perfringamus. Ipse enim egregius Apostolus in verbis, quæ
prædictæ dictioni subjungit, intentati criminis afferet solutionem:
“Quid ergo? peccabimus, quia non sumus sub lege, sed sub gratia?
Absit.”[351] Adeo divine et prophetice e vestigio dissolvit artem
voluptatis sophisticam. Non intelligunt ergo, ut videtur, quod “omnes
nos oportet manifestari ante tribunal Christi, ut referat unusquisque
per corpus ea quæ fecit, sive bonum, sive malum:”[352] ut quæ per
corpus fecit aliquis, recipiat. “Quare si quis est in Christo, nova
creatura est,” nec amplius peccatis dedita: “Vetera præterierunt,”
vitam antiquam exuimus: “Ecce enim nova facta sunt,”[353] castitas ex
fornicatione, et continentia ex incontinentia, justitia ex injustitia.
“Quæ est enim participatio justitiæ et injustitiæ? aut quæ luci cum
tenebris societas? quæ est autem conventio Christo cum Belial? quæ
pars est fideli cum infideli? quæ est autem consensio templo Dei cum
idolis?[354] Has ergo habentes promissiones, mundemus nos ipsos ab omni
inquinamento carnis et spiritus, perficientes sanctitatem in timore
Dei.”[355]
CAPUT IX.
DICTUM CHRISTI AD SALOMEN EXPONIT, QUOD TANQUAM
IN VITUPERIUM NUPTIARUM PROLATUM HÆRETICI
ALLEGABANT.
Qui autem Dei creaturæ resistunt per speciosam illam continentiam,
illa quoque dicunt, quæ ad Salomen dicta sunt, quorum prius meminimus:
habentur autem, ut existimo, in Evangelio secundum Ægyptios. Aiunt
enim ipsum dixisse Servatorem: “Veni ad dissolvendum opera feminæ;”
feminæ quidem, cupiditatis; opera autem generationem et interitum.
Quid ergo dixerint? Desiit hæc administratio? Non dixerint: manet
enim mundus in eadem œconomia. Sed non falsum dixit Dominus; revera
enim opera dissolvit cupiditatis, avaritiam, contentionem, gloriæ
cupiditatem, mulierum insanum amorem, pædicatum, ingluviem, luxum et
profusionem, et quæ sunt his similia. Horum autem ortus, est animæ
interitus: siquidem “delictis mortui” efficimur.[356] Ea vero femina
est intemperantia. Ortum autem et interitum creaturarum propter
ipsorum naturas fieri necesse est, usque ad perfectam distinctionem
et restitutionem electionis, per quam, quæ etiam sunt mundo permistæ
et confusæ substantiæ, proprietati suæ restituuntur. Unde merito
cum de consummatione Logos locutus fuerat, ait Salome: “Quousque
morientur homines?” Hominem autem vocat Scriptura dupliciter: et
eum, qui apparet, et animam; et eum rursus, qui servatur, et eum qui
non. Mors autem animæ dicitur peccatum. Quare caute et considerate
respondet Dominus: “Quoadusque pepererint mulieres,” hoc est quandiu
operabuntur cupiditates. “Et ideo quemadmodum per unum hominem
peccatum ingressum est in mundum, per peccatum quoque mors ad omnes
homines pervasit, quatenus omnes peccaverunt; et regnavit mors ab
Adam usque ad Moysen,”[357] inquit Apostolus: naturali autem divinæ
œconomiæ necessitate mors sequitur generationem: et corporis et animæ
conjunctionem consequitur eorum dissolutio. Si est autem propter
doctrinam et agnitionem generatio, restitutionis causa erit dissolutio.
Quomodo autem existimatur mulier causa mortis, propterea quod pariat:
ita etiam dicetur dux vitæ propter eamdem causam. Proinde quæ prior
inchoavit transgressionem, _Vita_ est appellata,[358] propter
causam successionis: et eorum, qui generantur, et qui peccant, tam
justorum quam injustorum, mater est, unoquoque nostrum seipsum
justificante, vel contra inobedientem constituente. Unde non ego quidem
arbitror Apostolum abhorrere vitam, quæ est in carne, cum dicit:
“Sed in omni fiducia, ut semper, nunc quoque Christus magnificabitur
in corpore meo, sive per vitam, sive per mortem. Mihi enim vivere
Christus et mori lucrum. Si autem vivere in carne, et hoc quoque mihi
fructus operis, quid eligam nescio, et coarctor ex duobus, cupiens
resolvi, et esse cum Christo: multo enim melius: manere autem in
carne, est magis necessarium propter vos.”[359] Per hæc enim, ut
puto, aperte ostendit, exitus quidem e corpore perfectionem, esse
in Dei dilectionem: ejus autem præsentiæ in carne, ex grato animo
profectam tolerantiam, propter eos, qui salute indigent. Quid vero?
non etiam ea, quæ deinceps sequuntur, ex iis, quæ dicta sunt ad
Salomen, subjungunt ii, qui quidvis potius quam quæ est ex veritate,
evangelicam regulam sunt secuti? Cum ea enim dixisset: “Recte ergo
feci, quæ non peperi:” scilicet, quod generatio non esset ut oportet
assumpta; excipit Dominus, dicens: “Omni herba vescere, ea autem, quæ
habet amaritudinem, ne vescaris.” Per hæc enim significat, esse in
nostra potestate, et non esse necessarium ex prohibitione præcepti,
vel continentiam, vel etiam matrimonium; et quod matrimonium creationi
aliquid affert auxilii, præterea explicans. Ne quis ergo eum deliquisse
existimet, qui secundum Logon matrimonium inierit, nisi existimet
amaram esse filiorum educationem: contra tamen, permultis videtur esse
molestissimum liberis carere. Neque amara cuiquam videatur liberorum
procreatio, eo quod negotiis implicatos a divinis abstrahat. Est enim,
qui vitam solitariam facile ferre non valens, expetit matrimonium:
quandoquidem res grata, qua quis temperanter fruitur, et innoxia:
et unusquisque nostrum eatenus sui dominus est, ut eligat, an velit
liberos procreare. Intelligo autem, quod aliqui quidem, qui prætextu
matrimonii difficultatum ab eo abstinuerunt, non convenienter sanctæ
cognitioni ad inhumanitatem et odium hominum defluxerunt, et perit apud
ipsos charitas; alii autem matrimonio ligati, et luxui ac voluptatibus
dediti, lege quodammodo eos comitante, fuerunt, ut ait Propheta,
“assimilati jumentis.”[360]
CAPUT X.
VERBA CHRISTI MATT. XVIII. 20, MYSTICE EXPONIT.
Quinam sunt autem illi “duo et tres, qui congregantur in nomine
Domini, in” quorum “medio” est Dominus?[361] annon virum et mulierem
et filium tres dicit, quoniam mulier cum viro per Deum conjungitur?
Quod si accinctus quis esse velit et expeditus, non volens procreare
liberos, propter eam, quæ est in procreandis liberis, molestiam et
occupationem, “maneat,” inquit Apostolus, absque uxore “ut ego.”[362]
Quidam vero effatum Domini exponunt, ac si dixisset, cum pluribus
quidem esse Creatorem ac præsidem generationis Deum; cum uno autem,
nempe electo, Servatorem, qui alterius, boni scilicet, Dei Filius sit.
Hoc autem non ita habet: sed est quidem etiam cum iis, qui honeste ac
moderate in matrimonio versati sunt, et liberos susceperunt, Deus per
Filium: est autem etiam cum eo, qui secundum logon, seu rationem, fuit
continens, idem Deus. Fuerint autem aliter quoque tres quidem, ira,
cupiditas, et ratio: caro autem at anima et spiritus, alia ratione.
Forte autem et vocationem et electionem secundam, et tertium genus,
quod in primo honore collocatur, innuit trias prius dicta: cum quibus
est, quæ omnia considerat, Dei potestas, absque divisione cadens
in divisionem. Qui ergo animæ naturalibus, ita ut oportet, utitur
operationibus, desiderat quidem ea, quæ sunt convenientia, odio autem
habet ea, quæ lædunt, sicut jubent mandata: “Benedices” enim, inquit,
“benedicenti, et maledices maledicenti.” Quando autem his, ira scilicet
et cupiditate, superior factus, et creaturæ amore vere affectus propter
eum, qui est Deus et effector omnium, gnostice vitam instituerit, et
Salvatori similis evadens, facilem temperantiæ habitum acquisiverit, et
cognitionem, fidem, ac dilectionem conjunxerit, simplici hac in parte
judicio utens, et vere spiritalis factus, nec earum, quæ ex ira et
cupiditate procedunt, cogitationum omnino capax, ad Domini imaginem ab
ipso artifice efficitur homo perfectus, is sane dignus jam est, qui
frater a Domino nominetur, is simul est amicus et filius. Sic ergo “duo
et tres” in eodem “congregantur,” nempe in homine gnostico. Poterit
etiam multorum quoque concordia ex tribus æstimata, cum quibus est
Dominus, significare unam Ecclesiam, unum hominem, genus unum. Annon
cum uno quidem Judæo erat Dominus, cum legem tulit: at prophetans, et
Jeremiam mittens Babylonem, quinetiam eos qui erant ex gentibus vocans
per prophetiam, congregavit duos populos: tertius autem est unus, qui
ex duobus “creatur in novum hominem, quo inambulat et inhabitat” in
ipsa Ecclesia? Et lex simul et prophetæ, una cum Evangelio, in nomine
Christi congregantur in unam cognitionem. Qui ergo propter odium uxorem
non ducunt, vel propter concupiscentiam carne indifferenter abutuntur,
non sunt in numero illorum qui servantur, cum quibus est Dominus.
CAPUT XI.
LEGIS ET CHRISTI MANDATUM DE NON CONCUPISCENDO
EXPONIT.
His sic ostensis, age Scripturas, quæ adversantur sophistis hæreticis,
jam adducamus, et regulam continentiæ secundum logon seu rationem
observandam declaremus. Qui vero intelligit, quæ Scriptura cuique
hæresi contraria sit, eam tempestive adhibendo refutabit eos, qui
dogmata mandatis contraria fingunt. Atque ut ab alto rem repetamus,
lex quidem, sicut prius diximus, illud, “Non concupisces uxorem
proximi tui,”[363] prius exclamavit ante conjunctam Domini in Novo
Testamento vocem, quæ dicit ex sua ipsius persona: “Audivistis legem
præcipientem: Non mœchaberis. Ego autem dico: Non concupisces.”[364]
Quod enim vellet lex viros uti moderate uxoribus, et propter solam
liberorum susceptionem, ex eo clarum est, quod prohibet quidem eum, qui
non habet uxorem, statim cum “captiva” habere consuetudinem.[365] Quod
si semel desideraverit, ei, cum tonsa fuerit capillos, permittere ut
lugeat triginta diebus. Si autem ne sic quidem emarcescat cupiditas,
tunc liberis operam dare, cum quæ dominatur impulsio, probata sit
præfinito tempore consentanea rationi appetitio. Unde nullum ex
veteribus ex Scriptura ostenderis, qui cum prægnante rem habuerit: sed
postquam gestavit uterum, et postquam editum fetum a lacte depulit,
rursus a viris cognitas fuisse uxores. Jam hunc scopum et institutum
invenies servantem Moysis patrem, cum triennium post Aaronem editum
intermisisset, genuisse Moysem. Et rursus Levitica tribus, servans
hanc naturæ legem a Deo traditam, aliis numero minor ingressa est in
terram promissam. Non enim facile multiplicatur genus, cum viri quidem
seminant, legitimo juncti matrimonio; exspectant autem non solum uteri
gestationem, sed etiam a lacte depulsionem. Unde merito Moyses, quoque
Judæos paulatim provehens ad continentiam, cum “tribus diebus”[366]
deinceps consequentibus a venerea voluptate abstinuissent, jussit
audire verba Dei. “Nos ergo Dei templa sumus, sicut dixit propheta:
Inhabitabo in eis, et inambulabo, et ero eorum Deus, et ipsi erunt meus
populus,” si ex præceptis vitam instituamus, sive singuli nostrum, sive
tota simul Ecclesia. “Quare egredimini e medio ipsorum, et separamini,
dicit Dominus, et immundum ne tangatis; et ego vos suscipiam, et ero
vobis in patrem, et vos eritis mihi in filios et filias, dicit Dominus
omnipotens.”[367] Non ab iis, qui uxores duxerunt, ut aiunt, sed a
gentibus, quæ adhuc vivebant in fornicatione, præterea autem a prius
quoque dictis hæresibus, ut immundis et impiis, prophetice nos jubet
separari. Unde etiam Paulus quoque verba dirigens ad eos, qui erant
iis, qui dicti sunt, similes: “Has ergo promissiones habete, inquit,
dilecti: mundemus corda nostra ab omni inquinamento carnis et spiritus,
perficientes sanctitatem in timore Dei.[368] Zelo enim vos zelo Dei;
despondi enim vos uni viro, virginem castam exhibere Christo.”[369]
Et Ecclesia quidem alii non jungitur matrimonio, cum sponsum habeat:
sed unusquisque nostrum habet potestatem ducendi, quamcunque velit,
legitimam uxorem, in primis, inquam, nuptiis. “Vereor autem, ne
sicut serpens seduxit Evam in astutia, corrumpantur sensus vestri a
simplicitate, quæ in Christo est,”[370] pie admodum et doctoris instar
dixit Apostolus. Quocirca admirabilis quoque Petrus: “Charissimi,
inquit, obsecro vos tanquam advenas et peregrinos, abstinete vos a
carnalibus desideriis, quæ militant adversus animam, conversationem
vestram inter gentes habentes bonam: quoniam sic est voluntas Dei, ut
bene facientes obmutescere faciatis imprudentium hominum ignorantiam;
quasi liberi, et non quasi velamen habentes malitiæ libertatem, sed
ut servi Dei.”[371] Similiter etiam scribit Paulus in Epistola ad
Romanos: “Qui mortui sumus peccato, quomodo adhuc vivemus in ipso?
Quoniam vetus homo noster simul est crucifixus, ut destruatur corpus
peccati,”[372] usque ad illud: “Neque exhibete membra vestra, arma
injustitiæ peccato.”[373] Atque adeo cum in hunc locum devenerim,
videor mihi non esse prætermissurus, quin notem, quod eumdem Deum
per legem et prophetas et Evangelium prædicet Apostolus. Illud enim:
“Non concupisces,” quod scriptum est in Evangelio, legi attribuit in
Epistola ad Romanos, sciens esse unum eum, qui prædicavit per legem et
prophetas, Patrem, et qui per ipsum est annuntiatus. Dicit enim: “Quid
dicemus? Lex estne peccatum? Absit. Sed peccatum non cognovi, nisi per
legem. Concupiscentiam enim non cognovissem, nisi lex diceret: Non
concupisces.”[374] Quod si ii, qui sunt diversæ sententiæ, repugnantes,
existiment Paulum verba sua dirigentem adversus Creatorem, dixisse
ea, quæ deinceps sequuntur: “Novi enim, quod non habitat in me, hoc
est, in carne mea, bonum;”[375] legant ea, quæ prius dicta sunt;
et ea, quæ consequuntur. Prius enim dixit: “Sed inhabitans in me
peccatum;” propter quod consentaneum erat dicere illud: “Non habitat
in carne mea bonum.”[376] Consequenter subjunxit: “Si autem quod
nolo, hoc ego facio, non utique ego id operor, sed quod inhabitat in
me peccatum:” quod “repugnans,” inquit, “legi“ Dei et ”mentis meæ,
captivat me in lege peccati, quæ est in membris meis. Miser ego homo,
quis me liberabit de corpore mortis hujus?”[377] Et rursus (nunquam
enim quovis modo juvando defatigatur) non veretur veluti concludere:
“Lex enim spiritus liberavit me a lege peccati et mortis:” quoniam
“per Filium Deus condemnavit peccatum in carne, ut justificatio legis
impleatur in nobis, qui non secundum carnem ambulamus, sed secundum
spiritum.”[378] Præter hæc adhuc declarans ea, quæ prius dicta sunt,
exclamat: “Corpus quidem mortuum propter peccatum:” significans id
non esse templum, sed sepulcrum animæ. Quando enim sanctificatum
fuerit Deo, “Spiritus ejus,” infert, “qui suscitavit Jesum a mortuis,
habitat in vobis: qui vivificabit etiam mortalia vestra corpora, per
ejus Spiritum, qui habitat in vobis.”[379] Rursus itaque voluptarios
increpans, illa adjicit: “Prudentia enim carnis, mors; quoniam qui ex
carne vivunt, ea, quæ sunt carnis, cogitant; et prudentia carnis est
cum Deo gerere inimicitias; legi enim Dei non subjicitur. Qui autem
sunt in carne,” non ut quidam decernunt, “Deo placere non possunt,” sed
ut prius diximus. Deinde ut eos distinguat, dicit Ecclesiæ: “Vos autem
non estis in carne, sed in spiritu, si quidem spiritus Dei habitat
in vobis. Si quis autem spiritum Christi non habet, is non est ejus.
Si autem Christus in vobis, corpus quidem est mortuum per peccatum,
spiritus autem vivus per justitiam. Debitores itaque sumus, fratres,
non carni, ut secundum carnem vivamus. Si enim secundum carnem vivitis,
estis morituri: si vero spiritu facta carnis mortificaveritis, vivetis.
Quicunque enim spiritu Dei aguntur, ii sunt filii Dei.” Et adversus
nobilitatem et adversus libertatem, quæ exsecrabiliter ab iis, qui
sunt diversæ sententiæ, introducitur, qui de libidine gloriantur,
subjungit dicens: “Non enim accepistis spiritum servitutis rursus in
timorem, sed accepistis spiritum adoptionis filiorum, in quo clamamus,
Abba Pater;”[380] hoc est, ad hoc accepimus, ut cognoscamus eum, quem
oramus, qui est vere Pater, qui rerum omnium solus est Pater, qui ad
salutem erudit et castigat ut pater, et timorem minatur.
CAPUT XII.
VERBA APOSTOLI 1 COR. VII. 5, 39, 40, ALIAQUE S.
SCRIPTURÆ LOCA EODEM SPECTANTIA EXPLICAT.
Quod autem “ex consensu ad tempus orationi vacat” conjugium, doctrina
est continentiæ. Adjecit enim illud quidem, “ex consensu,” ne quis
dissolveret matrimonium; “ad tempus autem,”[381] ne, dum ex necessitate
exercet continentiam is, qui uxorem duxerit, labatur in peccatum, et
dum suo conjugio parcit, alienum concupiscat. Qua ratione eum, qui se
indecore gerere existimat, quod virginem alat, recte eam dicit esse
nuptum daturum. Verum unusquisque, tam is qui castitatem delegit, quam
is qui propter liberorum procreationem seipsum conjunxit matrimonio, in
suo proposito firmiter debet perseverare, nec in deterius deflectere.
Si enim vitæ suæ institutum augere ac intendere poterit, majorem sibi
apud Deum acquirit dignitatem, propter puram et ex ratione profectam
continentiam. Si autem eam, quam elegit, regulam superaverit, in
majorem deinde ad spem gloriam recidet. Habet enim sicut castitas,
ita etiam matrimonium propria munera et ministeria, quæ ad Dominum
pertinent, filiorum, inquam, curam gerere et uxoris. Quod enim honeste
causatur is, qui est in matrimonio perfectus, est conjugii necessitudo,
ut qui omnium curam ac providentiam in domo communi ostenderit. Ac
proinde, “episcopos,” inquit, oportet constitui, qui ex domo propria
toti quoque Ecclesiæ præesse sint meditati. “Unusquisque” ergo, “in
quo vocatus est”[382] opere ministerium peragat, ut liber in Christo
fiat, et debitam ministerio suo mercedem accipiat. Et rursus de lege
disserens, utens allegoria: “Nam quæ sub viro est mulier,” inquit,
“viventi viro alligata est lege,”[383] et quæ sequuntur. Et rursus:
“Mulier est alligata, quandiu vivit vir ejus; sin autem mortuus
fuerit, libera est ut nubat, modo in Domino. Beata est autem si
sic permanserit, mea quidem sententia.”[384] Sed in priore quidem
particula, “mortificati estis,” inquit, “legi,” non matrimonio, “ut
efficiamini vos alteri, qui excitatus est ex mortuis,”[385] sponsa
et Ecclesia; quam castam esse oportet, et ab iis quæ sunt intus,
cogitationibus, quæ sunt contrariæ veritati; et ab iis, qui tentant
extrinsecus, hoc est ab iis, qui sectantur hæreses, et persuadent
vobis fornicari ab uno viro, nempe omnipotenti Deo: “Ne sicut serpens
decepit Evam,”[386] quæ “vita” dicitur, nos quoque inducti callidis
hæresium illecebris, transgrediamur mandata. Secunda autem particula
statuit monogamiam: non enim, ut quidam existimarunt, mulieris cum viro
alligationem, carnis cum corruptelâ connexionem, significari putandum
est; impiorum enim hominum, qui matrimonii inventionem diabolo aperte
tribuunt, opinionem reprehendit, unde in periculum venit legislator ne
incessatur maledictis. Tatianum arbitror Syrum talia audere dogmata
tradere. His verbis quidem certe scribit in libro _De perfectione
secundum Servatorem_: Consensum quidem conjungit orationi: communio
autem corruptelæ, interitus solvit interpellationem. Admodum certe
circumspecte arcet per concessionem. Nam cum rursus permisit “simul
convenire propter Satanam et intemperantiam,”[387] pronuntiavit eum,
qui est obtemperaturus, “serviturum duobus dominis:”[388] per consensum
quidem, Deo; per dissensionem autem, intemperantiæ et fornicationi
et diabolo. Hæc autem dicit, Apostolum exponens. Sophistice autem
eludit veritatem, per verum, falsum confirmans: intemperantiam
enim et fornicationem, diabolica vitia et affectiones nos quoque
confitemur; intercedit autem moderati matrimonii consensio, quæ tum
ad precationem continenter deducit, tum ad procreandos liberos cum
honestate conciliat. “Cognitio” quidem certe a Scriptura dictum est
tempus liberorum procreationis, cum dixit: “Cognovit autem Adam Evam
uxorem suam; et concepit, et peperit filium, et nominavit nomen ejus
Seth: Suscitavit enim mihi Deus aliud semen pro Abel.”[389] Vides,
quemnam maledictis incessant, qui honestam ac moderatam incessunt
seminationem, et diabolo attribuunt generationem. Non enim simpliciter
Deum dixit, qui articuli præmissione, nempe ὁ Θεός dicens, significavit
eum, qui est omnipotens. Quod ab Apostolo autem subjungitur: “Et
rursus simul convenite propter Satanam,”[390] in eum finem dicitur,
ut occasionem tollat ad alias declinandi cupiditates. Non enim
penitus repellit naturæ appetitiones, qui fit ad tempus, consensus:
per quem rursus inducit Apostolus conjugationem matrimonii, non ad
intemperantiam et fornicationem et opus diaboli, sed ne subjugetur
intemperantiæ, fornicationi, et diabolo. Distinguit autem veterem
quoque hominem et novum Tatianus, sed non ut dicimus, “Veterem” quidem
“virum,” legem; “novum” autem, Evangelium. Assentimur ei nos quoque,
sed non eo modo, quo vult ille, dissolvens legem ut alterius Dei:
sed idem vir et Dominus, dum vetera renovat, non amplius concedit
polygamiam (nam hanc quidem expetebat Deus, quando oportebat homines
augeri et multiplicari), sed monogamiam introducit propter liberorum
procreationem et domus curam, ad quam data est mulier adjutrix: et
si cui Apostolus propter intemperantiam et ustionem, veniam secundi
concedit matrimonii: nam hic quoque non peccat quidem ex Testamento
(non est enim a lege prohibitus), non implet autem summam illam vitæ
perfectionem, quæ agitur ex Evangelio. Gloriam autem sibi acquirit
cœlestem, qui apud se manserit, eam, quæ est morte dissoluta,
impollutam servans conjunctionem, et grato ac lubente animo paret
œconomiæ, per quam effectum est, ut divelli non possit a Domini
ministerio. Sed nec eum, qui ex conjugali surgit cubili, similiter ut
olim, tingi nunc quoque jubet divina per Dominum providentia: non enim
necessario a liberorum abducit procreatione, qui credentes per unum
baptismum ad consuetudinem omni ex parte perfectam abluit, Dominus, qui
etiam multa Moysis baptismata per unum comprehendit baptismum. Proinde
lex, ut per carnalem generationem nostram prædiceret regenerationem,
genitali seminis facultati baptismum olim adhibuit, non vero quod
ab-hominis generatione abhorreret. Quod enim apparet homo generatus,
hoc valet seminis dejectio. Non sunt ergo multi coitus genitales, sed
matricis susceptio fatetur generationem, cum in naturæ officina semen
formatur in fetum. Quomodo autem vetus quidem est solum matrimonium et
legis inventum, alienum autem est, quod est ex Domino, matrimonium, cum
idem Deus servetur a nobis? “Non” enim “quod Deus conjunxit, homo” jure
“dissolverit;”[391] multo autem magis quæ jussit Pater, servabit quoque
Filius. Si autem idem simul est et legislator et evangelista, nunquam
ipse secum pugnat. Vivit enim lex, cum sit spiritalis, et gnostice
intelligatur: nos autem “mortui” sumus “legi per corpus Christi, ut
gigneremur alteri, qui resurrexit ex mortuis,” qui prædictus fuit a
lege, “ut Deo fructificaremus.”[392] Quare “lex quidem est sancta, et
mandatum sanctum, et justum, et bonum.”[393] Mortui ergo sumus legi,
hoc est, peccato, quod a lege significatur, quod ostendit, non autem
generat lex, per jussionem eorum quæ sunt facienda, et prohibitionem
eorum quæ non facienda; reprehendens subjectum peccatum, “ut appareat
peccatum.” Si autem peccatum est matrimonium, quod secundum legem
initur, nescio quomodo quis dicet se Deum nosse, dicens Dei jussum esse
peccatum. Quod si “lex sancta” est, sanctum est matrimonium. Mysterium
ergo hoc ad Christum et Ecclesiam ducit Apostolus: quemadmodum “quod
ex carne generatur, caro est; ita quod ex spiritu, spiritus,”[394] non
solum in pariendo, sed etiam in discendo. Jam “sancti sunt filii,”[395]
Deo gratæ oblectationes verborum Dominicorum, quæ desponderunt animam.
Sunt ergo separata fornicatio et matrimonium, quoniam a Deo longe abest
diabolus. “Et vos ergo mortui estis legi per corpus Christi, ut vos
gigneremini alteri, qui surrexit a mortuis.”[396] Simul autem proxime
exauditur, si fueritis obedientes: quandoquidem etiam ex veritate
legis eidem Domino obedimus, qui præcipit eminus. Nunquid autem de
ejusmodi hominibus merito aperte “dicit Spiritus, quod in posterioribus
temporibus deficient quidam a fide, attendentes spiritibus erroris, et
doctrinis dæmoniorum, in hypocrisi falsiloquorum, cauteriatam habentium
conscientiam, et prohibentium nubere, abstinere a cibis, quos Deus
creavit ad participationem cum gratiarum actione fidelibus, et qui
agnoverunt veritatem, quod omnis creatura Dei bona est, et nihil est
rejiciendum quod sumitur cum gratiarum actione. Sanctificatur enim per
verbum Dei et orationem?”[397] Omnino igitur non est prohibendum jungi
matrimonio, neque carnibus vesci, aut vinum bibere. Scriptum est enim:
“Bonum est carnem non comedere, nec vinum bibere, si quis comedat per
offendiculum.”[398] Et: “Bonum est manere sicut ego.”[399] Sed et qui
utitur, “cum gratiarum actione,”[400] et qui rursus non utitur, ipse
quoque “cum gratiarum actione,” et cum moderata ac temperanti vivat
perceptione, logo seu rationi convenienter. Et, ut in summa dicam,
omnes Apostoli epistolæ, quæ moderationem docent et continentiam,
cum et de matrimonio, et de liberorum procreatione, et de domus
administratione innumerabilia præcepta contineant, nusquam honestum
moderatumque matrimonium prohibuerunt aut abrogarunt: sed legis cum
Evangelio servantes convenientiam, utrumque admittunt: et eum, qui
Deo agendo gratias, moderate utitur matrimonio; et eum, qui, ut vult
Dominus, vivit in castitate, quemadmodum “vocatus est, unusquisque”
inoffense et perfecte eligens. “Et erat terra Jacob laudata supra omnem
terram,”[401] inquit propheta, ipse vas spiritus gloria afficiens.
Insectatur autem aliquis generationem, in eam dicens interitum cadere,
eamque perire: et detorquet aliquis ad filiorum procreationem illud
dictum Servatoris: “Non oportere in terra thesauros recondere, ubi
tinea et ærugo demolitur;”[402] nec erubescit his addere ea, quæ
dicit propheta: “Omnes vos sicut vestimentum veterascetis, et tinea
vos exedet.”[403] Sed neque nos contradicimus Scripturæ, neque in
nostra corpora cadere interitum, eaque esse fluxa, negamus. Fortasse
autem iis, quos ibi alloquitur propheta, ut peccatoribus, prædicit
interitum. Servator autem de liberorum procreatione nil dixit, sed ad
impertiendum ac communicandum eos hortatur, qui solum opibus abundare,
egentibus autem nolebant opem ferre. Quamobrem dicit: “Operamini non
cibum, qui perit; sed eum, qui manet in vitam æternam.”[404] Similiter
autem afferunt etiam illud dictum de resurrectione mortuorum: “Filii
illius sæculi nec nubunt, nec nubuntur.”[405] Sed hanc interrogationem
et eos qui interrogant, si quis consideraverit, inveniet Dominum non
reprobare matrimonium, sed remedium afferre exspectationi carnalis
cupiditatis in resurrectione. Illud autem, “filiis hujus sæculi,”[406]
non dixit ad distinctionem alicujus alius sæculi, sed perinde ac si
diceret: Qui in hoc nati sunt sæculo, cum per generationem sint filii,
et gignunt et gignuntur; quoniam non absque generatione hanc quis vitam
prætergreditur: sed hæc generatio, quæ similem suscipit interitum,
non amplius competit ei qui ab hac vita est separatus. “Unus est ergo
Pater noster, qui est in cœlis:”[407] sed is ipse quoque Pater est
omnium per creationem. “Ne vocaveritis ergo, inquit, vobis patrem
super terram.”[408] Quasi diceret: Ne existimetis eum, qui carnali vos
sevit satu, auctorem et causam vestræ essentiæ, sed adjuvantem causam
generationis, vel ministrum potius. Sic ergo nos rursus conversos vult
effici ut pueros, eum, qui vere Pater est, agnoscentes, regeneratos
per aquam, cum hæc sit alia satio in creatione. At, inquit, “Qui
est cælebs, curat quæ sunt Domini; qui autem duxit uxorem, quomodo
placebit uxori.” Quid vero? annon licet etiam eis, qui secundum Deum
placent uxori, Deo gratias agere? Annon permittitur etiam ei, qui
uxorem duxit, una cum conjugio etiam esse sollicitum de iis quæ sunt
Domini? Sed quemadmodum “quæ non nupsit, sollicita est de iis, quæ sunt
Domini, ut sit sancta corpore et spiritu:”[409] ita etiam quæ nupsit,
et de iis, quæ sunt mariti, et de iis, quæ sunt Domini, est in Domino
sollicita, ut sit sancta et corpore et spiritu. Ambæ enim sunt sanctæ
in Domino: hæc quidem ut uxor, illa vero ut virgo. Ad eos autem pudore
afficiendos et reprimendos, qui sunt proclives ad secundas nuptias,
apte Apostolus alto quodam tono eloquitur; inquit enim: “Ecce, omne
peccatum est extra corpus; qui autem fornicatur, in proprium corpus
peccat.”[410] Si quis autem matrimonium audet dicere fornicationem,
rursus, legem et Dominum insectans, maledictis impetit. Quemadmodum
enim avaritia et plura habendi cupiditas dicitur fornicatio, ut quæ
adversetur sufficientiæ: et ut idololatria est ab uno in multos Dei
distributio, ita fornicatio est ab uno matrimonio ad plura prolapsio.
Tribus enim modis, ut diximus, fornicatio et adulterium sumitur apud
Apostolum. De his dicit propheta: “Peccatis vestris venundati estis.”
Et rursus: “Pollutus es in terra aliena:”[411] conjunctionem sceleratam
existimans, quæ cum alieno corpore facta est, et non cum eo, quod datur
in conjugio, ad liberorum procreationem. Unde etiam Apostolus: “Volo,
inquit, juniores nubere, filios procreare, domui præesse, nullam dare
occasionem adversario maledicti gratia. Jam enim quædam diverterunt
post Satanam.”[412] Quin et unius quoque uxoris virum utique admittit;
seu sit presbyter, seu diaconus, seu laicus, utens matrimonio citra
reprehensionem: “Servabitur autem per filiorum procreationem.”[413]
Et rursus Servator dicens Judæos “generationem pravam et adulteram,”
docet eos legem non cognovisse, ut lex vult: “sed seniorum traditionem,
et hominum præcepta sequentes,” adulterare legem, perinde ac si non
esset data vir et dominus eorum virginitatis. Fortasse autem eos quoque
innuit esse alienis mancipatos cupiditatibus, propter quas assidue
quoque servientes peccatis, vendebantur alienigenis. Nam apud Judæos
non erant admissæ communes mulieres: verum prohibitum erat adulterium.
Qui autem dicit: “Uxorem duxi, non possum venire,”[414] ad divinam
cœnam, est quidem exemplum ad eos arguendos, qui propter voluptates
abscedunt a divino mandato: alioquin nec qui justi fuere ante adventum,
nec qui post adventum uxores duxerunt, servabuntur, etiamsi sint
apostoli. Quod si illud attulerint, quod propheta quoque dicit:
“Inveteravi inter omnes inimicos meos,”[415] per inimicos peccata
intelligant. Unum quoddam autem est peccatum, non matrimonium, sed
fornicatio: alioqui generationem quoque dicunt peccatum, et creatorem
generationis.
CAPUT XIII.
JULII CASSIANI HÆRETICI VERBIS RESPONDET; ITEM LOCO
QUEM EX EVANGELIO APOCRYPHO IDEM ADDUXERAT.
Talibus argumentis utitur quoque Julius Cassianus, qui fuit princeps
sectæ 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
hæc constitutio, non beatos dixisset esse eunuchos; neque propheta
dixisset, eos ‘non esse arborem infrugiferam;’[416] 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 Ægyptios. Deinde mihi videtur
ignorare, iram quidem, masculam appetitionem; feminam vero, significare
cupiditatem: quorum operationem pœnitentia et pudor consequuntur.
Cum quis ergo neque iræ neque cupiditati obsequens, quæ quidem et
consuetudine et mala educatione auctæ, obumbrant et contegunt
rationem, sed quæ ex iis proficiscitur exuens caliginem, et pudore
affectus ex pœnitentia, 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 præclarus plus, quam par sit, Platonice, animam, cum sit ab
initio divina, cupiditate effeminatam, huc venire ad generationem et
interitum.
CAPUT XIV.
2 COR. XI. 3, ET EPH. IV. 24, EXPONIT.
Jam vero vel invitum cogit Paulum generationem ex deceptione deducere,
cum dicit: “Vereor autem, ne sicut serpens Evam decepit, corrupti
sint sensus vestri a simplicitate, quæ est in Christo.”[417] Sed
certum est, Dominum quoque “venisse” ad ea, “quæ aberraverant.”[418]
Aberraverunt autem, non ab alto repetita origine in eam, quæ 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 præceptis inobedientia corrupti sunt, dum nimis
avide voluptatem persequeremur; cum utique protoplastus noster tempus
prævenisset, et ante debitum tempus matrimonii gratiam appetiisset et
aberrasset: quoniam “quicunque aspicit mulierem ad concupiscendum eam,
jam mœchatus est eam,”[419] ut qui voluntatis tempus non exspectaverit.
Is ipse ergo erat Dominus, qui tunc quoque damnabat cupiditatem, quæ
prævenit matrimonium. Cum ergo dicit Apostolus: “Induite novum hominem,
qui secundum Deum creatur,”[420] nobis dicit, qui ab Omnipotentis
voluntate efficti sumus, sicut sumus efficti. “Veterem” autem dixit,
non rescipiens ad generationem et regenerationem, sed ad vitam
inobedientiæ et obedientiæ. “Pelliceas” autem “tunicas”[421] existimat
Cassianus esse corpora: in quo postea et eum, et qui idem cum eo
sentiunt, aberrasse ostendemus, cum de ortu hominis, iis consequenter,
quæ prius dicenda sunt, aggrediemur expositionem. “Quoniam, inquit,
qui a terrenis reguntur, et generant, et generantur: _Nostra autem
conversatio est in cœlo, ex quo etiam Salvatorem exspectamus._”[422]
Recte ergo nos hæc quoque dicta esse scimus, quoniam ut hospites et
advenæ 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.
1 COR. VII. 1; LUC. XIV. 26; ISA. LVI. 2, 3, EXPLICAT.
Et rursus cum dicit: “Bonum est homini uxorem non tangere, sed
propter fornicationes unusquisque suam uxorem habeat;”[423] id veluti
exponens, rursus dicit: “Ne vos tentet Satanas.”[424] 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 æmulationem,
et adversus eos contendit, volens eos ad suos ordines traducere, per
laboriosam continentiam eis vult præbere occasionem. Merito ergo
dicit: “Melius est matrimonio jungi quam uri,”[425] ut “vir reddat
debitum uxori, et uxor viro, et ne frustrentur invicem”[426] hoc
divino ad generationem dato auxilio. “Qui autem, inquiunt, non oderit
patrem, vel matrem, vel uxorem, vel filios, non potest meus esse
discipulus.”[427] Non jubet odisse proprium genus: “Honora” enim,
inquit, “patrem et matrem, ut tibi bene sit:”[428] 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.”[429] Rursus dicit Dominus: “Qui uxorem duxit,
ne expellat; et qui non duxit, ne ducat;”[430] qui ex proposito
castitatis professus est uxorem non ducere maneat cælebs. Utrisque
ergo idem Dominus per prophetam Isaiam convenientes dat promissiones
sic dicens: “Ne dicat eunuchus: Sum lignum aridum;” hæc enim dicit
Dominus eunuchis: “Si custodieritis sabbata mea, et feceritis quæcunque
præcipio, dabo vobis locum meliorem filiis et filiabus.”[431] 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.”[432] Ei enim, qui secundum Logon
filios procreavit et educavit, et erudivit in Domino, sicut etiam
ei, qui genuit per veram catechesim et institutionem, merces quædam
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 hæreses. Eunuchus ergo, non qui per vim excisas
habet partes, sed nec qui cælebs est, dictus est, sed qui non gignit
veritatem. Lignum hic prius erat aridum; si autem Logo obedierit, et
sabbata custodierit per abstinentiam a peccatis, et fecerit mandata,
erit honorabilior iis, qui absque recta vitæ institutione solo sermone
erudiuntur. “Filioli, modicum adhuc sum vobiscum,”[433] inquit
Magister. Quare Paulus quoque scribens ad Galatas, dicit: “Filioli
mei, quos iterum parturio, donec formetur in vobis Christus.”[434]
Rursus ad Corinthios scribens: “Si enim decies mille pædagogos,”
inquit, “habeatis in Christo, sed non multos patres. In Christo enim
per Evangelium ego vos genui.”[435] Propterea “non ingrediatur eunuchus
in Ecclesiam Dei,”[436] qui est sterilis, et non fert fructum, nec
vitæ institutione, nec sermone. Sed “qui se” quidem “castrarunt” ab
omni peccato “propter regnum cœlorum,”[437] ii sunt beati, qui a mundo
jejunant.
CAPUT XVI.
JER. XX. 14; JOB XIV. 3; PS. L. 5; 1 COR. IX. 27, EXPONIT.
“Exsecranda” autem “dies in qua natus sum, et ut non sit optanda,”[438]
inquit Jeremias: non absolute exsecrandam dicens generationem, sed
populi peccata ægre ferens et inobedientiam. Subjungit itaque: “Cur
enim natus sum ut viderem labores et dolores, et in perpetuo probro
fuerunt dies mei?”[439] Quin etiam omnes, qui prædicabant veritatem,
propter eorum, qui audiebant, inobedientiam, quærebantur ad pœnam, et
veniebant in periculum. “Cur enim non fuit uterus matris meæ sepulcrum,
ne viderem afflictionem Jacob et laborem generis Israel?”[440] ait
Esdras propheta. “Nullus est a sorde mundus,” ait Job, “nec si sit
quidem una dies vita ejus.”[441] Dicant ergo nobis, ubi fornicatus
est infans natus? vel quomodo sub Adæ cecidit exsecrationem, qui
nihil est operatus? Restat ergo eis, ut videtur, consequenter,
ut dicant malam esse generationem, non solum corporis, sed etiam
animæ, per quam exsistit corpus. Et quando dixit David: “In peccatis
conceptus sum, et in iniquitatibus concepit me mater mea:”[442] 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 animæ meæ.”[443] Non accusat eum, qui dixit: “Crescite
et multiplicamini:”[444] 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,”[445] videlicet qui peccant.
“Quoniam nobis est colluctatio non adversus carnem et sanguinem, sed
adversus spiritalia.”[446] 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, quæ utenda judicavit,
“illi quidem ut corruptibilem coronam accipiant; nos autem ut
incorruptibilem,”[447] in lucta vincentes, non autem sine pulvere
coronam accipientes. Jam nonnulli quoque præferunt viduam virgini, ut
quæ, 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 quæ 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.”[448] 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.”[449] 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 quæ 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
essentiæ, per quam naturæ, per quam angeli, per quam potestates, per
quam animæ, per quam præcepta, 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,”[450] quod unxit animam et uniit spiritui. Quomodo autem,
quæ est in Ecclesia nostra, œconomia ad finem perduci potuisset absque
corpore, cum etiam ipse, qui est caput Ecclesiæ, in carne quidem
informis et specie carens vitam transiit, ut doceret nos respicere ad
naturam divinæ causæ informem et incorpoream? “Arbor enim vitæ,” inquit
propheta, “est in bono desiderio,”[451] docens bona et munda desideria,
quæ sunt in Domino vivente. Jam vero volunt viri cum uxore in
matrimonio consuetudinem, quæ dicta est “cognitio,” esse peccatum: eam
quippe indicari ex esu “ligni boni et mali,”[452] per significationem
hujus vocabuli “cognovit,”[453] quæ mandati transgressionem notat. Si
autem hoc ita est, veritatis quoque cognitio, est esus ligni vitæ.
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 animæ, inimicam per sanitatis restitutionem adversus ipsam
muniisset. “Hoc autem dico, fratres, quod caro et sanguis regnum Dei
non possunt possidere, neque corruptio possidet incorruptionem.”[454]
Peccatum enim, cum sit “corruptio,” non potest habere societatem cum
“incorruptione,” quæ est justitia. “Adeo stulti,” inquit, “estis? cum
spiritu cœperitis, nunc carne consummamini.”[455]
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, quæ est veneranda firmaque, alii
quidem, ut ostendimus, nimium intenderunt, blaspheme ac maledice cum
quavis impietate suscipientes continentiam; cum pie liceret castitatem,
quæ 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;”[456] ut qui et ipsi contineri non possint, et proximis
suis persuadeant ut dent operam voluptati; infeliciter illas audientes
Scripturas: “Quæ tibi obtigit, partem pone nobiscum, crumenam autem
unam possideamus communem, et unum fiat nobis marsupium.”[457] Propter
eos idem propheta dicit, nobis consulens: “Ne ambulaveris in via cum
ipsis, declina pedem tuum a semitis eorum. Non enim injuste tenduntur
retia pennatis. Ipsi enim, cum sint sanguinum participes, thesauros
malorum sibi recondunt;”[458] hoc est, sibi affectantes immunditiam, et
proximos similia docentes, bellatores, percussores caudis suis,[459]
ut ait propheta, quas quidem Græci κέρκους appellant. Fuerint autem
ii, quos significat prophetia, libidinosi intemperantes, qui sunt
caudis suis pugnaces, tenebrarum “iræque filii,”[460] cæde polluti,
manus sibi afferentes, et homicidæ propinquorum. “Expurgate ergo vetus
fermentum, ut sitis novo conspersio,”[461] nobis exclamat Apostolus.
Et rursus, propter quosdam ejusmodi homines indignans, præcipit, “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 præceptorum. Quare tunc quidem in carne
vivebam carnaliter: “quod autem nunc vivo in carne, in fide vivo Filii
Dei.”[462]--“In viam gentium ne abieritis, et ne ingrediamini in urbem
Samaritanorum,”[463] a contraria vitæ institutione nos dehortans
dicit Dominus; quoniam “Iniquorum virorum mala est conversatio; et
hæ sunt viæ omnium, qui ea, quæ sunt iniqua, efficiunt.”[464]--“Væ
homini illi,” inquit Dominus; “bonum esset ei, si non natus esset,
quam ut unum ex electis meis scandalizaret.[465] Melius esset, ut ei
mola circumponeretur, et in mari demergeretur, quam ut unum ex meis
perverteret.[466] Nomen enim Dei blasphematur propter ipsos.”[467]
Unde præclare Apostolus: “Scripsi,” inquit, “vobis in epistola, non
conversari cum fornicatoribus,”[468] usque ad illud: “Corpus autem non
fornicationi, sed Domino, et Dominus corpori.”[469] Et quod matrimonium
non dicat fornicationem, ostendit eo, quod subjungit: “An nescitis,
quod qui adhæret meretrici, unum est corpus?”[470] An meretricem
quis dicet virginem, priusquam nubat? “Et ne fraudetis,” inquit, “vos
invicem, nisi ex consensu ad tempus:”[471] per dictionem, “fraudetis,”
ostendens matrimonii debitum esse liberorum procreationem: quod quidem
in iis, quæ præcedunt, ostendit, dicens: “Mulieri vir debitum reddat;
similiter autem mulier quoque viro;”[472] post quam exsolutionem, in
domo custodienda, et in ea quæ est in Christo fide, adjutrix est. Et
adhuc apertius, dicens: “Iis, qui sunt juncti matrimonio, præcipio,
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,”[473] usque ad illud: “Nunc autem sancta est.”[474] Quid
autem ad hæc 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 præsit,”[475]
Ecclesiæ ducem constituat; domum autem Dominicam “unius mulieris”
constituat conjugium. “Omnia” ergo dicit esse “munda mundis; pollutis
autem et infidelibus nihil est mundum, sed polluta est eorum et mens,
et conscientia.”[476] De ea autem voluptate, quæ est præter regulam:
“Ne erretis,” inquit; “nec fornicatores, nec idololatræ, 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,”[477] 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 impudentiæ
affixi; ut a regno Dei abdicentur, non autem ut inscribantur, qui ad
eos ventitant, efficientes; sub falso nominatæ cognitionis titulo,
eam, quæ ad exteriores ducit tenebras, viam ingredientes. “Quod
reliquum est, fratres, quæcunque vera, quæcunque honesta, quæcunque
justa, quæcunque casta, quæcunque amabilia, quæcunque bonæ famæ; si qua
virtus, et si qua laus, ea considerate; quæ et didicistis; quæ etiam
accepistis et audiistis et vidistis in me, ea facite; et Deus pacis
erit vobiscum.”[478] Et Petrus similia dicit in Epistola: “Ut fides
vestra et spes sit in Deum, cum animas vestras castas effeceritis in
obedientia veritatis;”[479] quasi filii obedientiæ, non configurati
prioribus desideriis, quæ 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.”[480]
Verumtamen quæ 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, quæ sunt de vera philosophia, commentariorum, hunc
finem habeat.
BOOK IV.
CHAPTER I.
ORDER OF CONTENTS.
It will follow, I think, that I should treat of martyrdom, and of
who the perfect man is. With these points shall be included what
follows in accordance with the demands of the points to be spoken
about, and how both bond and free must equally philosophize, whether
male or female in sex. And in the sequel, after finishing what is to
be said on faith and inquiry, we shall set forth the department of
symbols; so that, on cursorily concluding the discourse on ethics,
we shall exhibit the advantage which has accrued to the Greeks from
the barbarian philosophy. After which sketch, the brief explanation
of the Scriptures both against the Greeks and against the Jews will
be presented, and whatever points we were unable to embrace in the
previous _Miscellanies_ (through having respect necessarily to
the multitude of matters), in accordance with the commencement of the
proem, purposing to finish them in one commentary. In addition to
these points, afterwards on completing the sketch, as far as we can
in accordance with what we propose, we must give an account of the
physical doctrines of the Greeks and of the barbarians, respecting
elementary principles, as far as their opinions have reached us, and
argue against the principal views excogitated by the philosophers.
It will naturally fall after these, after a cursory view of theology,
to discuss the opinions handed down respecting prophecy; so that,
having demonstrated that the Scriptures which we believe are valid
from their omnipotent authority, we shall be able to go over them
consecutively, and to show thence to all the heresies one God and
Omnipotent Lord to be truly preached by the law and the prophets,
and besides by the blessed gospel. Many contradictions against the
heterodox await us while we attempt, in writing, to do away with the
force of the allegations made by them, and to persuade them against
their will, proving by the Scriptures themselves.
On completing, then, the whole of what we propose in the commentaries,
on which, if the Spirit will, we ministering to the urgent need, (for
it is exceedingly necessary, before coming to the truth, to embrace
what ought to be said by way of preface), shall address ourselves to
the true gnostic science of nature, receiving initiation into the minor
mysteries before the greater; so that nothing may be in the way of
the truly divine declaration of sacred things, the subjects requiring
preliminary detail and statement being cleared away, and sketched
beforehand. The science of nature, then, or rather observation, as
contained in the gnostic tradition according to the rule of the truth,
depends on the discussion concerning cosmogony, ascending thence to
the department of theology. Whence, then, we shall begin our account
of what is handed down, with the creation as related by the prophets,
introducing also the tenets of the heterodox, and endeavouring as far
as we can to confute them. But it shall be written if God will, and as
He inspires; and now we must proceed to what we proposed, and complete
the discourse on ethics.