Inglés · Textos cristianos
Padres Ante-Nicenos, Vol. II: Los Padres Apostólicos, Hermas, Taciano, Atenágoras, Teófilo y Clemente de Alejandría
Parte 49
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, 2428 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.” 2429
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. 2430 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.
p. 379
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,” 2431 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? 2432 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. 2433 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.” 2434 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.” 2435
Let us conclude this second book of the Stromata at this point, on account of the length and number of the chapters.
Footnotes
377:2421
[He places the essence of marriage in the chaste consummation itself, the first after lawful nuptials. Such is the force of this definition, which the note in ed. Migne misrepresents, as if it were a denial that second nuptials are marriage.]
377:2422
Gen. xx. 12.
377:2423
Tob. iv. 15.
377:2424
Gen. i. 28.
377:2425
[The offering of the purification has a beautiful regard to the example of the turtle-dove; and the marriage-ring may have been suggested by the ringdove, a symbol of constancy in nature.]
378:2426
Gen. ii. 18. [A beautiful tribute to the true wife.]
378:2427
The corrections of Stanley on these lines have been adopted. They occur in the Choephoræ of Æschylus, 503, but may have been found in Sophocles, as the tragic poets borrowed from one another.
378:2428
i.e., not entering into a second marriage after a wife’s death. But instead of μονογαμίου some read κακογαμίου—bad marriage.
378:2429
[To be a mother, indeed, one must be first a wife; the woman who has a child out of wedlock is not entitled to this holy name.]
378:2430
[A holy marriage, as here so beautifully defined, was something wholly unknown to Roman and Greek civilization. Here we find the Christian family established.]
379:2431
Matt. v. 32; xix. 9.
379:2432
Lev. xx. 10; Deut. xxii. 22.
379:2433
Lev. xxi. 9.
379:2434
Ezek. xxxiii. 11.
379:2435
Luke. xii. 48.
Elucidations.
I.
(On the Greeks, cap. i. note 3, p. 347.)
The admirable comments of Stier on the Greeks, who said to Philip, “We would see Jesus,” 2436 seem to me vindicated by the history of the Gospel, and by the part which the Greeks were called to take in its propagation. Clement seems to me the man of Providence, who gives rich significance to “the corn of wheat,” and its multiplication in Gentile discipleship. And in this I am a convert to Stier’s view, against my preconceptions. That the Greeks who were at Jerusalem at the Passover were other than Hellenistic Jews, or Greek proselytes, always seemed to me improbable; but, more and more, I discover a design in this narrative, which seems to me thoroughly sustained by the history of the Gentile churches, which were Greek everywhere originally, and for the use of which the Septuagint had been prepared in the providence of God. To say nothing of the New-Testament Scriptures, the whole symbolic and liturgic system of the early Christians and all the Catholic councils which were Greek in their topography, language, and legislation, confirm the sublime thought which Stier has elucidated. “The Pharisees said, The world is gone after him; and there were certain Greeks,” etc. So the story is introduced. Jesus is told of their desire to see him; and he answers, “The hour is come that the Son of man should be glorified;” and he goes on to speak of his death as giving life to the world. I feel grateful to Stier for his bold originality in p. 380 treating the subject; and I trust others will find that it invests the study of the ante-Nicene Fathers with a fresh interest, and throws back from their writings a peculiar reflex light on the New-Testament Scriptures themselves.
II.
(See p. 352, note 9.)
Μόνος ὁ σοφὸς ἐλέυφερος. Stier, in his comments 2437 on St. John (viii. 32–36), may well be compared with this chapter of Clement’s. The eighteenth chapter of this book must also be kept in view if we would do full justice to the true position of Clement, who recognises nothing in heathen philosophy as true wisdom, save as it flows from God, in Moses, and through the Hebrew Church. That Greek philosophy, so viewed, did lead to Christ, and that this great principle is recognised in the apostolic teachings, seems to me indisputable. This illustrates what has been noted above in Elucidation I.
III.
(See p. 359.)
Clement notes that the false Gnostics rejected the Epistles to Timothy, 2438 chiefly because of 1 Tim. vi. 20. Beausobre (Histoire du Manichéisme, tom. ii. p. v.) doubts as to Basilides, whether he is open to this charge; but Jerome accuses him expressly of rejecting the pastoral epistles, and that to the Hebrews. For this, and Neander’s qualifying comment, see Kaye, p. 263. Clement is far from charging Basilides, personally, with an immoral life, or from lending his sanction to impurity; but a study of the Gnostic sects, with whom our Alexandrian doctor was forced to contend, will show that they were introducing, under the pretence of Christianity, such abominations as made their defeat and absolute overthrow a matter of life and death for the Church. To let such teachers be confounded with Christians, was to neutralize the very purpose for which the Church existed. Now, it was in the deadly grapple with such loathsome errorists, that the idea of “Catholic orthodoxy” became so precious to the primitive faithful. They were forced to make even the heathen comprehend the existence of that word-wide confederation of churches already explained, 2439 and to exhibit their Scriptural creed and purity of discipline, in the strongest contrast with these pestilent “armies of the aliens,” who were neither Gnostics nor Christians indeed, much less Catholic or Orthodox teachers and believers.
Now, if in dealing with counterfeits Clement was obliged to meet them on their own grounds, and defeat them on a plan, at once intelligible to the heathen, and enabling all believers to “fight the good fight of faith” successfully, we must concede that he knew better than we can, what was suited to the Alexandrian schools, their intellect, and their false mysticism. His works were a great safeguard to those who came after him; though they led to the false system of exposition by which Origen so greatly impaired his services to the Church, and perhaps to other evils, which, in the issue, shook the great patriarchate of Alexandria to its foundations. It is curious to trace the influence of Clement, through Tertullian and St. Augustine, upon the systems of the schoolmen, and again, through them, on the Teutonic reformers. The mysticism of Fénelon as well, may be traced, more than is generally credited, to the old Alexandrian school, which was itself the product of some of the most subtle elements of our nature, sanctified, but not wholly controlled, by the wisdom that is from above. Compare the interminable controversies of the period, in the writings of Fénelon and Bossuet; and, for a succinct history, see L’Histoire de l’église de France, par l’Abbe Guettée, tom. xi. p. 156 et seqq.
Footnotes
379:2436
Reden Jesu. St. John xii. 23-26.
380:2437
“Words of Jesus.” Translation (vol. v. p. 354, ed. Edinburgh, 1856).
380:2438
Stromata, book ii. cap. xi. p. 358, supra.
380:2439
Quotation from Milman, p. 166, this volume.
The Stromata, or Miscellanies.
p. 381
Book III. 2440
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, nun sit melius uxorem non ducere, dicunt respondisse Dominum: ‘Non omnes capiunt verbum hoc. Sunt enim eunuchi alii a nativitate, alii vero a necessitate.’” 2441 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,’ 2442 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 Isidoms 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 timbare non desinas, duc uxorem. Sin est aliquis juvenis, vel pauper, vel infirmus, et non ei libel 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 manure, ne peccem; et confestim turn in mente, turn in corpore opem experietur. Velit modo quod bonum est perficere, et assequetur. Nonnunquam autem ore tenus dicimus: Nolumus peccare; animus autem noster propendet in pectatum. Qui est ejusmodi, propier meturn, 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 propier perfectionera, vel omnino quidera natura salvi futuri sint, etsi nunc peccent, quod naturæ dignitate sunt electi. Neque vero primi dogmaturn 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.” 2443 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 p. 382 eo, quod est propositum. Nos quidem castitatem, et eos, quibus hoc a Deo datum est, beatos decimus: monogamiam autem, et quæ consistit in uno solum matrimonio, honestatem admira tour; dicerites tamen oportere aliorum misereri, et “alterum alterius onera portare,” 2444 ne “quis, cure” recte “stare videatur,” 2445 ipse quoque “cadat.” De secundis autum nuptiis: “Si uraris,” inquit Apostolus, “jungere matrimonio.” 2446
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 probruin. Hic autem Epiphanes, cujus etiam scripta feruntur, filius erat Carpocratis, et matris Alexandriæ nomine, ex patre quidera Alexandrinus, ex matre vero Cephalleneus. Vixit autem solum septemdecim annos, et Same, quæ est urbs Cephalleniæ, ut deus est honore affectus. Quo in loco templum ex ingentibus lapidibus, altaria, delubra, museum, ædificatum est et consecratum; et cure 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 2447 cognitionis. A quo etiam profluxit hæresis eorum, qui nunc sunt, Carpocratianorum. Is ergo dicit in libro De justitia, “Justitiam Dei esse quamdam cure æqualitate communionem. Æquale quidera certe cœlum undequaque extensum totam terrain 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, femmas et masculos, liberos, servos. Sed neque secus facit in brutis. Cure autem omnibus animantibus æque ipsum communem effuderit. bonis et malis justitiam suam confirmat, cure nemo possit plus habere, neque auferre a proximo, ut ipse illius lucem habeat duplicatam. Sol facit omnibus animantibus communia exorm nutrimenta, communi justitia ex æquo data omnibus: et ad ea, quæ sunt hujusmodi, similiter se habet genus boum, ut bores; et suum, at sues, et ovium, ut oves; et reliqua omnia. Justitia enim in iis apparel 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 liege 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 communionera: ex æquo communiter omnibus oculum ad videndum, creator et pater omnium, sua justitia legera ferens, præbuit, non discernens feminam a masculor non id quod est rationis particeps, ab experte rationis, el, 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 rites 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 cure masculo communiter conjunxisset, et omnia similiter animantia conglutinasset, pronuntiavit justitiam, communionem cum æqualilate. Qui autem sic nati sunt, communionera, quæeorum conciliat generationem, abnegaverunt. Et dicit, si unam ducens habeat, cure omnium possint esse participes, sicut reliqua recit 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 perhæc aperte destruat? Ilia enim dicit: “Non mœchaberis.” 2448 Hoc autem dicit: “Quicunque respicit ad concupiscentiam, jam mœchatus est.” 2449 Illud enim: “Non concupisces,” 2450 quod a lege dicitur, ostendit unum esse Deum, qui præ dicatur 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: 2451 p. 383 clarum est utique præceptum, quod dicit: “Non concupisces uxorem propinqui tui,” loqui de gentibus: ut cure quis secundum legera et ab uxore proximi eta sorore abstinuefit, aperte audiat a Domino: “Ego autem dico, non concupisces.” Additio autem hujus particulæ “ego,” majorem præcepti vim ostendit. Quod autem cure Deo bellum gerat Carpocrates, et Epiphanes etiam in eo, qui vulgo jactatur, libro De justilia, 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 earn auferat animali. Illud autem: ‘Uxorein proximi mi,’ quo communionera cogit ad proprietatem, dixit adhuc magis ridicule.” Ethæc quidera dogmata constituunt egregii Carpocratiani. Hos dicunt et aliquos alios similium malorum æmulatores, ad cœnas convenientes (neque enim dixerim “agapen” eorum congressionem) 2452 viros simul et mulieres, postquam cibis venerem excitantibus se expleverint, lumine amoto, quod eorum fornicatoriam hanc justitiam pudore afficiebat, aversa lucema, coire quomodo velint, et cure quibus velint: meditatos autem inejusmodi “agape” communionem, interdiu jam, a quibus velint mulieribus exigere Carpocrateæ (divinæ enim nefas est discere) legis obedientiam. Has leges, ut sentio, ferre opportuit Carpocratem canum et suum et hircorum libidinibus. Mihi autem videtur, Platonem quoque mate intellexisse, in Republica dicentem, oportere esse communes omnium uxores: ut qui diceret eas quidem, quæ nondum nupserant, esse communes eorum, qui essent petituri, quemadmodum theatram quoque est commune spectatorum; esse autem unamquamque uniuscujusque qui præoccupasset, et non amplius communem esse earn quæ nupsisset. Xanthus autem in iis, quæ scribuntur Magica: “Cœunt autem,” inquit, “magi cum matribus et filiabus: et fas esse aiunt coire cure sororibus, et communes esse uxores, non vi et clam, sed utrisque consentientibus, cure velit alter ducere uxorem alterius.” De his et similibus hæresibus existimo Judam prophetice dixisse in epistola: “Similiter quidera hi quoque somniantes” (non enim vigilantes ad veritatem se applicant), usque ad illud: “Et os eorum loquitur superba.” 2453
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 2454 quidem dicunt malam esse naturam, ex mala materia, et a justo factam opifice ac Creatore. Qua quidera 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 ærem respirant Creatoris, ut quiet 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 quidera, cure de principiis tractabimus, accuratissime disseremus. Philosophi autem, quorum mentionera fecimus, a quibus cure malam esse generationem irapie didicissent Marcionitæ, tanquam suo dogmate gloriantur, non eam volunt esse natura malam, sed anima, quæ veritatem divulgavit. Artimam 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 plius 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 conyenire 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 horninure genus atque misellum
Litibus ex quantis prognati et planctibus estis?
Dicit autem Sibylla quoque:—
Mortales homines, caro qui tantum, et nihil estis;
Similiter atque pœta, qui scribit:—
Haud homine infelix tellus mage quldquam alit alma.
p. 384
Quin etiam Theognis malam ostendit esse generationera, dicens hoc modo:—
Optima non nasci res est mortalibus ægris,
Nec nitidi soils luce micante frui,
Extemplo aut natum portas invadere Ditis.
His autem consequenria scribit quoque Euripides, pœta 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 quidera siet mori,
Siet mori autem vivere?
Idem quod hi, videtur Herodotus quoque inducere dicentem Solonera: “O Crœse, quivis homo nihil est aliud quam calamitas.” Jam vero ejus de Cleobide et Bitone fabula plane nihil aliud vult, quam vituperare generationera, laudare autern morterm.
Et qualis folii, est heminum generatia 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, “quæcunclue significare potest: iedo 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 ilia sub terra videtit communia, novit quidem vitæ finem, novit autem datum Jovis imperium.” Et Plato similiter in Pædonene non veretur hoc modo scribere: “Porto autem hi, qui nobishæc constituerunt mysteria, non aliquid aliud,” usque ad: “Et cure diis habitatlone.” Quid vero, cum dieit: “Quandiu corpus habuefimus, 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 runus: “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?” 2455 nisi forte eorum consensionem, qui trahuntur in vitium, “corpus morris” dicit tropice. Atque coitum quoque, qui est principium generationis, vel ante Marcionem vietur Plato aversari in primo De republica: ubi cum laudasset senectutem, subjungit: “Velim scias, quod quo magis me deficiunt alise,” nempe corporis, “voluptates, eo magis confabulandi cupiditas, et voluptas, quam ex ea re capio, augetur.” rei veneree injecta esset menrio: “Bona verba quæso,” inquit: “ego vero lubenter isthinc, tanquam ad 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 allqua.” Et rursus: “Qui autem pie præcæ teris 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 mundohæc dixerit: “Ab eœnim, qui ipsum construxit, habet omnia bona: a priori autem deformirate incommoda et injusta omnia, quæ intra cœlum nascuntur, mundus ipse sustinet, et animantibus inserit.” Adhuc autem subjungit manifestius: “Cujus quidem defectus est coporea temperatura, priscæ naturge comes; ham quiddam valde deforme erat, et ordinis expert, priusquampræsenti 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 horninure 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 irmumerabiles labores universa fiunt, ut omnes dicimus.” Quid vero? annon Heraclitus generationera quoque dicit esse mortem? Pythagoras autem similiter atque Socrates in Gorgia, cum dicit: “Mors est, quæ unque experrecti videmus: quæ cunque autem dormientes, somnus.” Sed de his quidem satis. Quando autem tractabimus de principiis, tune et has repugnantias, quas et innuunt philosophi, et suis dogmatibus decernunt Marcionistæ, considerabimus. Cæterum satis dilucide ostensas esse existimo, externorum alienorumque dogmaturn occasiones Marcionem ingrate et indocte accepisse a Platone. Nobis autem procedar sermo de continentia. Dicebamus autem” p. 385 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 nastier.
Dein filios acerbis cum coloribus
Enitor, ast enixa, si stolidi scient,
Afflictor, intuendo quod servo malos,
Bonosque perdo. Si bonos servo, tamen
Mihi miscellum 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 nunquam 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 miserriam
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 vana, 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 excitens, et concoctu difficile, et somnia efficiat turbulenta; neque quod hominis capiti sit sireills 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.