IV. Климент александрийский

Clement of Alexandria is as much a theologian as he is a Christian philosopher. In his time, Christianity especially began to attract the attention of the educated pagan society, which began to seek satisfaction in it for its mind and heart, but often turned away from it, because Christianity required faith, without supposedly giving higher knowledge; and therefore Clement, by the rank of catechist in the catechetical school, placed in close relations with the pagans who wanted to accept Christianity, very naturally set himself the idea - in the writings that have come down to us - to make the pagan a Christian, through the combination of pagan philosophy with Christian theology. He tried to achieve this by 1) elevating philosophy, which, taken as a whole, and not in its individual representatives, was for the pagans, in his opinion, the same as revelation for the Jews, 2) recognizing faith as the beginning of knowledge, 2) defining the mutual relations of both, and, in his opinion, philosophy should be subordinate to theology, should be a servant of theology, be in the same relationship to it as Hagar was to Sarah and 4) finally, using the services of philosophy on an extensive scale, he translated Christian concepts into the language of the philosophy of that time and revealed Christian truths from those sides from which they came into contact with the views and thoughts of pagan philosophers and writers. Preoccupied with the idea of ​​combining philosophy with revelation, faith with knowledge, addressing the pagans who were still seeking enlightenment by the faith of Christ, Clement naturally had, in accordance with his task, to reveal the teaching about the sacraments from the point of view of improving faith and knowledge through them, from the point of view of them as ways to strengthen faith in the heart and enlighten the mind, elevating it to contemplation. He considers the sacraments primarily from the perspective of the fruits that a Christian receives from accepting them for his mind and heart. The purpose of the Alexandrian catechet is to clarify the gradual progress of a person’s mental and moral improvement through the acceptance of grace in the sacraments, and not to understand what a sacrament is in itself, from the visible and invisible side and their combination in the sacrament. Clement was disposed to such a formulation of the disclosure of the doctrine of the sacraments not only by the above goals that he pursued in his activities as an Alexandrian catechist, but to a large extent also by the hidden, allegorical way of presentation that distinguished the Alexandrian school and was especially loved by Clement. Where, it would seem, he needed to look at the sacraments in themselves (from the objective side), he went into an allegorical depiction, partly out of his love for allegorism, carried away by his favorite way of presentation, partly out of a desire to hide from his readers the deep, mysterious, objective side of the Christian sacraments 275. From this it is clear why the starting point of all Clement’s discussions about the sacraments was the idea of ​​human perfection (τελείωσις). The concept of improvement is the main concept that runs through all of his writings. By this improvement he meant the gradual purification of human nature and the gradual elevation and proper direction of human activity, mainly the activity of his mind. Since Clement wrote his works either directly for the pagans, like the “Admonition to the Greeks,” or as much for the pagans as for those converted from paganism, like the “Pedagogue,” or mainly for these latter, but keeping in mind, however, readers from the pagans who were disposed towards Christianity, like the “Stromata,” then it is clear that he tried to depict primarily the first moment of man’s assimilation of the work of Christ’s salvation, with the help of grace God, in the sacraments of the church, is the moment when a person becomes a real Christian and gains access to all the benefits bestowed by Christianity. And since this moment is made up of three particular moments, namely baptism, confirmation and the Eucharist, he talked primarily about these sacraments, believing the completion of everything in the Eucharist. True, depicting the life of a true, perfect, knowledgeable Christian - a Gnostic, as he liked to call him - Clement talks a lot about marriage life, often touches on cases of fall and the healing of the fallen by repentance, sometimes talks about the church hierarchy and just does not mention anointing at all; but still, his thought, like a catechet, focuses primarily on the first moment of a person’s life of grace in Christianity - on the moment of his rebirth, strengthening and acceptance of the fullness of grace. I. About the first three sacraments in general. In accordance with the above view of baptism, confirmation and the Eucharist, Clement views these sacraments for the most part together, as one act (albeit with several separate moments) of transforming the catechumen by the grace of God into a perfect Christian, fully possessing all the great benefits of Christianity. At the same time, in his presentation the difference between baptism and the Eucharist comes out more clearly than confirmation and baptism. This depended, in all likelihood, on the fact that confirmation was even more inextricably linked, by the time of its occurrence, with baptism than the Eucharist with this latter: since in order to attend the Eucharist, it was necessary to go from the baptismal to the assembly of the faithful, to the church; Confirmation took place in the same baptismal chamber in which baptism took place. However, in some places Clement clearly distinguishes three particular acts in one general act of raising a person to the highest degree of spiritual perfection. That he really found three main parts in the act of accepting new members into the Church of Christ is beyond doubt and becomes quite convincing after considering the most important passages relating to baptism and the Eucharist, to which we move on 276 . II. Baptism and Confirmation. The most thorough disclosure of the dogmatic teaching about the first two sacraments is presented in one of the chapters of the “Pedagogue,” directed against those who believed that calling the newly baptized infants and children means that they are still imperfect, that in baptism and other sacraments they have not yet received complete perfection 277 . Clement begins his refutation of this opinion as follows: “Having been reborn, we immediately received the perfect (τέλειον), for which we hastened. For we have been enlightened; and this means to know God. Therefore, he who has known the perfect is not imperfect.” Like the Savior, who, being perfect even without baptism, nevertheless “receives perfection from a single font and is sanctified by the descent of the Spirit” 278 - only to show us what we should do - so it happens with us. “This same thing happens to us, for whom the Lord was a model. By being baptized we are enlightened, by being enlightened we are adopted, by being adopted we are perfected, by being perfected we become immortal... This is called in many words: gift, enlightenment, perfect, bath 279 . I bathe because through it we wash away our sins. A gift because through it the punishments that follow for sins are left. Enlightenment because through it that holy, saving light is contemplated (έποπτεύεται), that is, through it we receive acute vision (for contemplation) of the divine. Perfection is something in which there is no deficiency. For what else does he who knows God lack? It is truly absurd to call a gift (not yet) fulfilled a gift from God. He who is perfect is given perfect things.” What is most remarkable here is the depiction of the three degrees of ascent to perfection: baptism - enlightenment, adoption - perfection, and finally, immortality (ἀθανασία = Eucharist, as we will see in its place). By adoption, which follows baptism or enlightenment, we mean anointing 280; by immortality, we mean the Eucharist. In his further reasoning, Clement proves that the newly baptized and received St. Spirit, there is already a perfect person, regardless, of course, of the even higher perfection that he can receive in this life through exercise in virtue, and especially in the future life, and also regardless of participation in the Eucharist, which represents an even higher degree of perfection, compared with baptism and receiving the Spirit. “So, only to believe and be reborn is already perfection in life... Having just been reborn, as the name itself shows, and enlightened, he was immediately freed from darkness and from the same time received light.” Enlightenment in baptism is similar to healing from dark water in the eyes, and light is not given from outside, but only obstacles to the action of the pupil are removed. “So those who were baptized, having cast off their sins, blocking the divine Spirit like fog, acquired a free, unhindered spiritual eye, through which we alone contemplate (ἐποπτεύομεν) the divine, at the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Spirit upon us from heaven. This is the eternal union of radiance, having the ability to see the eternal light; for like is friendly to like, and holy is to that from which it (became) holy” 281 . So, in enlightenment, or baptism, our spiritual eye is first healed from what darkens it, namely from sins (washing in water), and then, when the Holy Spirit is poured out on us from heaven, the light that, thanks to washing, is already in our eyes, is united (κρᾶμα) with that illumination that the Holy Spirit brings with them from heaven. “But,” continues Clement, they say that he (i.e., the baptized) has not yet received the perfect gift (τελέιαν δωρεάν). I agree with this too. But he is in the light and darkness does not embrace him, and between light and darkness there is nothing in between. The end (τέλος) is supposed (truth) in the resurrection of believers. But it consists in nothing other than receiving what was promised before. We are not saying that both—the achievement of the end and the beginning of the achievement—exist together at the same time.” “So, as far as is possible in this world... we believe that we have become perfect (τελείους). For faith is perfection (derived) from learning. Therefore (Christ) says: he who believes in the Son has eternal life." 282 Next, Clement analyzes faith, which, if only it is perfect and complete, cannot lack anything. “Where there is faith, there is a promise, and the fulfillment of a promise is peace; so in enlightenment there is knowledge (γνῶσις), but the limit of knowledge is tranquility... It is necessary that darkness be destroyed by light. Darkness is ignorance through which we fall into sins, wandering around the truth. Knowledge is enlightenment by which ignorance is destroyed and through which the ability to see is obtained. But the postponement of the worst is at the same time the revelation of the best. What ignorance binds badly is well resolved by knowledge. These bonds (of ignorance), as quickly as possible, are removed on the one hand by human will, on the other by divine grace, when sins are forgiven through a single healing medicine, baptism with the Word. So, we are washed from all sins and are no longer evil in our feet. This single grace of enlightenment consists in the fact that our behavior is not the same as it was before ablution. Since this knowledge appears together with enlightenment, illuminating the mind, and we, who have not yet been taught, immediately (εὐθέωσ) hear (that we are called) disciples, then (the question is) at what time, then (enlightenment appeared), when did that teaching (disclosure) take place? You can't tell the time. “For the catechumen leads to faith, and faith, together with baptism, is nurtured by the Holy Spirit. Spirit" 283. It is impossible to divide the baptized into Gnostics and spiritual ones; they are all equal and they are all spiritual. 284 Clement finds it not inappropriate (οὐκ ἄτοπον) to use the expressions of the Gnostics about διυλισμὸς τοῦ πνεύματος and noting that they also admit the doctrine of repentance, through which, according to them, the Spirit himself comes, says: “in the same way, we, having repented of our sins, renouncing devotion to them, cleansed from matter by baptism (διυλιξόμενοι βαπτίσματι), hasten to the eternal light, children to the Father” 285. Throughout this whole argument of Clement the general idea runs through that there are different degrees of perfection. The first degree is baptism; Those who are baptized immediately upon emerging from the water are already complete. The further degree is the receipt of the Holy Spirit by the baptized; when the Spirit of God descends on him, then he becomes even more perfect; he becomes the Son of God, is adopted; then he is finally enlightened and made perfect. True, he receives enlightenment even in the catechumen and then in water baptism; but divine illumination by the Spirit still adds light to his spiritual eye, already cleansed of sinful darkness. Of course, baptized with water and received St. I have not yet received the perfect gift of the Spirit, I have not yet partook of the incorruptible body of the Lord; but that doesn't mean it's imperfect. Thus, from all this reasoning, the conclusion clearly follows that Clement looks at the reception of the Holy Spirit. after baptism, as an act completely separate from immersion and constituting a very important step in the matter of elevating a person to a state of perfection. Moreover, in the chapter discussed, the doctrine about the conditions of sanctification on the part of man and God (faith on the part of the former and grace on the part of the latter) is precisely and clearly formulated. Here, finally, there is an indication of prevenient grace. Precisely, by his refusal to determine the moment when enlightenment by the Holy Spirit took place for the first time. and with the words: “the catechumen leads to faith, and faith, together with baptism, is nurtured by the Holy Spirit,” Clement obviously wanted to say that grace begins to act on a person even before baptism, generating faith in the catechumen 286 . All the thoughts expressed by Clement about baptism and confirmation can be expressed in the following brief points: 1) Grace is necessary for the very beginning of faith; The effect of grace on a person begins in the catechumen; 2) Immersion in water brings us cleansing from sins, enlightenment of our spiritual eye through the removal of sinful darkness; 3) The act of bringing down St. The Spirit that follows after baptism serves to strengthen the enlightenment and improve our faith in general, to further enlighten our mental eyes, through the communication of heavenly illumination by the Spirit of God, to assimilate to us the ability to see God and to arouse in us the desire to go to meet Him, the eternal light, like children to the Father; 4) Both of these acts are conditioned by the presence of faith on the part of man and grace on the part of God. Their fruits, in addition to the enlightenment of the mind, are: the putting off of the old man - in baptism by water and adoption to God - in the baptism of the Spirit; 5) Both of these acts, considered independently, make a person perfect, especially the last of them, so that Christians cannot be divided, as the Gnostics do, into carnal, mental and spiritual; everyone who is baptized and has received the Holy Spirit. there is a completely perfect person; 6) Clement’s teaching about the relationship of grace to water and peace is not revealed. III. About the Eucharist. Both considered acts of enlightenment represent, according to Clement, a preparation for the final, highest act, which consists in communion with the incorruptibility of the Lord and in spiritual union with Him through the deepest contemplation (ἐποπτεία). The best transition to the presentation of the doctrine of the Eucharist can be the continuation of the same chapter of the “Pedagogue” in which, as we have just seen, Clement treats in detail about baptism. In the continuation of this chapter, - explaining the ritual of the newly baptized eating milk and honey, in connection with the words of the Apostle about milk and solid food, about infants in Christ and the perfect, - the catechist finds that this ritual, performed after baptism and confirmation, but before receiving the Eucharist, has a very deep meaning, namely: on the one hand, it indicates what has already happened to the newly baptized, the catechumen and baptism, - on the other hand, it foreshadows, foreshadows what will happen to them next, the communion of the Eucharist. Having first taken the words of the apostle (1 Cor. 3:2) some to the catechumens, others to the future life, to the future knowledge of God, then goes into an extensive allegorical depiction of the process of the gradual rise of the knowledge of God under the image of partaking of the milk of the Word in various forms, or, in other words, discusses the strengthening and nourishment of rational faith, first in the catechumenate, then in baptism and, finally, in the Eucharist. And first of all, it deals with the first two degrees of knowledge of God, or the nourishment of rational faith with the Word, like milk - in the catechumenate and baptism. The main idea of ​​this entire part of the allegorical image 287 is that just as milk is capable of taking on different forms, appearing either in liquid or in solid form, and as it is in essence - on the one hand, changed blood, on the other, a liquid body, and therefore is able to turn into both blood and body, so the Word is able to take on different forms for human nutrition; and It is capable of becoming and does become everything for a Christian: a mentor in the catechumen, and a father and mother in baptism, and a nourisher after rebirth. By depicting the Word as a nourisher upon rebirth, Clement alludes to the Eucharist; but he actually talks about it in his further allegorical depiction of human nutrition with the Word, like milk, however, also indirectly, but in more or less transparent hints. Moving further to an allegorical depiction of the nourishment of rational faith with the Word, as with milk, in the Eucharist he asks his reader: “But you don’t want to understand this way, but (you want to understand) perhaps in a more ordinary way? You will hear such an interpretation. Holy Spirit allegorically points (ἀλληγορεῖ) to our flesh; for by Him was the flesh created. The blood hints to us at the Word: for the Word, like abundant blood, was poured out for life. And the co-dissolution of both is the Lord, the food of infants - the Lord is the Spirit and the Word. Food, i.e. the Lord Jesus, i.e. the Word of God. The incarnating spirit is the heavenly flesh being sanctified. This food is the milk of the Father, which alone feeds infants. Therefore, the Word itself, our beloved and nourisher, shed his own blood for us, saving humanity. Having believed in God through Him, let us resort to the breast of the Father, which gives oblivion of worries, to the Word. He alone, as is proper, gives us babies the milk of love” 288. The more ordinary explanation of milk that Clement intends to give here is that milk is to be understood not only in the sense of the teaching imparted by the Church as mother, but also in the sense of partaking of the Eucharist - the flesh and blood of the Lord, not sanctified only once through suffering, but as "heavenly flesh" constantly "sanctified." Christ, as the Word incarnate, constantly creates flesh for himself in the Eucharist and therefore He is the Spirit “incarnate”; for the Spirit creates the flesh. In this sense, Christ - the Word incarnate and the Spirit incarnate - is the milk of the Father 289, the breast of the Father, and newly baptized babies should rush to this breast, just as in ancient times those who had received baptism rushed to move from the baptismal to the church to receive the Eucharist. Milk, Clement continues, is not something completely different from blood; Newborn babies, feeding on their mother's milk, feed on her blood itself. “Therefore, having been born, we are immediately fed with milk, the Lord’s food, and having been reborn, we are immediately honored (in the same way), receiving through that gospel (εὐαγγελιζόμενοι) the hope of peace - the hope of the highest Jerusalem, about which it is written that honey and milk flow in it. Through the material we become engaged to holy food. For food will be destroyed (1 Cor. 6:13), as the apostle himself says; nourishment with milk leads to heaven - nutrition that nourishes the citizens of heaven who commune with the angels" 290. That here, along with an indication of the future life, there is also an allusion to the Eucharist is clear from Clement’s further reasoning, which follows after several intervening thoughts. Explaining the words of Ev. from John (6:32–33, 51) about the bread of heaven, which, according to the Lord, is His flesh, notes: “here you need to notice the mysterious meaning of bread (μυστικὸν ἄρτου), that He (the Lord) calls it flesh, - the flesh that resurrects (ἀνεσταμένην) truly through fire, as wheat rises from corruption and sowing, and is thus assembled for the joy of the Church, like baked bread 291... And the bread that I will give is my flesh. The flesh is watered with blood; blood is allegorically symbolized by wine; but you need to know that just as bread, crushed into a mixture (of wine with water), absorbs wine and leaves watery particles (ὐδατῶδες), so the body of the Lord, the heavenly bread, absorbs blood, feeding into incorruption those of the people who are heavenly, leaving only these carnal desires for corruption 292 . Thus, the Word is allegorically designated by many expressions: food, flesh, food, bread, blood, milk... Let no one be amazed that we call the blood of the Lord milk in an allegorical sense; for is not wine also an allegorical name? He washes, it is said (Gen. 49:11), his clothes in wine and his garments in the blood of grapes. He indicates that He will build the body of the Word in His Spirit, just as He will undoubtedly feed with His Spirit those who thirst for the Word 293 . And that blood is the Word, this is evidenced by the blood of righteous Abel, crying out to God. Blood would never have raised its voice if the blood had not meant the Word. For the righteous man of the Old Testament is a type of the New Testament, and the old blood cries out for the blood of the New" 294 . After a rather long discussion again about milk and blood in their mutual relations, Clement seems to formulate everything that he had said hitherto about milk, as a symbol of various objects, in the following expressions: “in all respects, in everything, we are related to Christ and in kinship through His blood, by which we are redeemed, and in sympathy through the nourishment of the Word and in incorruptibility through guidance from Him. This very thing, (i.e.) both the blood and milk of the Lord is a symbol of suffering and teaching” 295. “Milk has a certain, very natural affinity with water, just as, without a doubt, a spiritual bath with spiritual food” 296. Thus, milk - the Word redeems us with its blood, nourishes us in the catechumenate and baptism, and guides us to immortality in the Eucharist; milk is therefore a symbol of all this: suffering, the catechumen with baptism and the Eucharist. In all this reasoning, Clement tried to show that the eating of milk by the newly baptized does not at all show that the Church considers them imperfect, carnal, infants in Christ. The Word is represented by milk. Just as milk can take different forms - be in a liquid and solid state, purify a person along with water, turn into blood and flesh: so the Word can be received in the catechumen in the form of the beginnings of teaching, - turn into solid food when establishing faith, i.e. communicated in the form of the most important Christian truths, then can completely regenerate a person, destroying in him all carnal, alien thoughts and desires, and, finally, completely attract him to the Father’s chest, which gives oblivion of worries, that is, to complete immersion in God in contemplation; and therefore the Word is not only our mentor, but also mother, father, and finally, nourisher. It spiritually instructs us, spiritually revives us and spiritually nourishes us. So, milk very well depicts all these moments of a person’s spiritual enlightenment, starting with the announcement and ending with the last act - the Eucharist. But at the same time, eating milk after baptism is not an important action in itself; it is only “a symbol of suffering and teaching.” In relation to the Eucharist, it is only “the gospel, the pre-offering of holy food”; there will be no more milk supply; it points the way to heaven, it is “the food that nourished the citizens of heaven who commune with the angels.” Thus, in this entire discussion we are primarily talking not about the Eucharist, but about the eating of milk by the newly baptized, regarding the solution to the question of the perfection of knowledge of the newly baptized. If they talk about the Eucharist (as we actually saw), then it is adaptive to the main topic. The passages in which the Eucharist forms the main theme of the speech are found in the Stromata 297. And in these latter, it is true, we are also talking about the spiritual tasting of the Eucharist and, moreover, directly speaks of the communion of the deity, but at the same time, a view is expressed on the Eucharist as a sacrifice, and the doctrine of the incorruptibility of man through the body, acquired through the eating of the Eucharistic body and blood, is revealed, and a cover of some special mystery is thrown over the Eucharistic sacrifice. These are the places. In one of the chapters of book V. “Stromat”, dedicated to the presentation of the teaching of the Apostles about the sacraments of faith, requiring cover and silence, Clement, discussing at the beginning in general about the truths of faith, inaccessible to the understanding of every person 298, then moves on to the Eucharist, as to the spiritual nutrition of man through communion with the essence of the Divine, 299 and at the same time comes to the conclusion that the Eucharist is the greatest of sacrifices. “So if the apostle calls milk for infants and solid food for the perfect; then by milk we mean catechumen, as if the first nourishment of the soul, and by solid food contemplative speculation (ἐποπτικὴ θεωρία), which is the very flesh and blood of the Word, that is, the perception of divine power and essence. Taste, he says, and see that Christ is Lord 300. For in this way He gives Himself over to those who receive such solid food in a more spiritual way, so also, according to the wise Plato, the soul nourishes itself. Eating and drinking the divine Word is knowledge of the divine essence. That is why Plato says in the second book of the Republic: “those who sacrifice not a pig, but some great and difficult sacrifice”... And the Apostle writes: Christ sacrificed our Easter for us (1 Cor. 5:7). “A truly rare victim. The Son of God is sanctified for us.” Here, bringing the Eucharist closer to the last degree of pagan mysteries, which was called ἐποπτεία, Clement finds that the Eucharist is a Christian ἐποπτεία, that in it Christians make a sacrifice and contemplate Christ himself in this sacrifice, that through contemplation they partake of the divine Power and essence, since in at the Eucharist the Lord betrays Himself (έαυτοῦ μεταδίδωσι); Here He is the sacrifice made for us (θῦμα ὐπὲρ ήμῶν ἁγιαζόμενος). Ἁγιαζόμενος, - as completely identical with the expression of I. Christ about himself (in John 17:19), which undoubtedly contains the idea of ​​​​giving himself up to suffering - expresses here the idea that in the Eucharist Christ every time gives himself up as a sacrifice. The parallel between the Eucharist and the last degree of the Mysteries is drawn even more directly and clearly in the next chapter 301. Having said at the beginning that the sacrifice pleasing to God consists in putting aside the body and its passions and citing on this occasion the opinions of some of the pagans 302, the author continues: “It is very surprising that the stage philosopher Euripides agrees with what we have said above, hinting, I don’t know how, to the Father and the Son together: “To you, the king of all, I bring a drink offering and sacrificial bread, (to you) Zeus or, if you wish better, (so) be called, Hades; accept from me the hard-to-get sacrifice, of all the fruits, complete, spilled.” For Christ is a sacrifice for us, combining all the fruits and rare (ὁλοκάρπωμα καὶ ἄπορον). He (Euripides) will make it obvious to us that he himself, without realizing it, names the Savior himself, adding (to the above): “For you, O Hades, holding the scepter of Zeus among the gods of heaven, participate in the power over the earthly” 303 ... It is also not dissimilar that in the mysteries performed by the Greeks, purifications take precedence, just as among the barbarians the bath. After these purifications are the lesser mysteries, which contain some basis for learning and for preparation for the future. In the great (mysteries) - about everything together, there is no longer anything left to learn (anything), but to contemplate and embrace with the mind nature and things” 304. Among further considerations, dwelling on the fact that Abraham only on the third day saw the place designated for the sacrifice of Isaac. Clement notes: “the first day is the day of seeing good things, the second is the desire of a beautiful soul: on the third day the mind sees the spiritual, when the mental eyes are opened by the Teacher, who rose again on the third day. Three days could also be understood in the sense of the sacrament of the seal (τῆς σφραγίδος μυστήριον) through which faith in the true God is obtained” 305. What is remarkable here is the convergence of the three degrees in the pagan mysteries with the three Christian sacraments 306. In particular, regarding the Eucharist, it is remarkable that it is compared with Abraham’s sacrifice of his son Isaac and with the highest degree of mysteries, among which learning no longer occurs, but the very essence of things is contemplated (φύσις καὶ τὰ πράγματα). In another book, Stromatus, 307, we find several more wonderful thoughts related to the Eucharist. Having said at the beginning that in the Old Testament someone unclean in body and soul did not have the right to enter the tabernacle, that only the Levites had access to it, that they were forbidden to touch the dead and in case of uncleanness they were commanded to cleanse themselves for seven days, in order to show through this the need to “be washed first from birth and sin,” as Job did, in the words (Job 1:21) naked I came out of my mother’s womb, I wanted to show my non-participation in “evil and sin and the incorporeal idol that follows those who lived unrighteously” 308 - Clement then continues: “For this was the same thing that (Christ) said: unless you are converted and become like children (Matthew 18:3), pure in body, holy in soul through abstinence from evil deeds, showing that He wants us to be such as He begot you from falsehoods. water (ἐκ μήτρας ὔδατος). For birth, replacing birth, wants through a (further) degree to immortalize us 309... The wise Moses pointed out the purity of body and soul, which the Gnostic pursues, excellently using repetition and describing (Gen. 26:16), the integrity (ἀδιαφθορον) of Rebekah's body and soul... And Rebekah, according to interpretation, means the glory of God; the glory of God is incorruptibility (ἀφθαρσία). It is in truth righteousness (δικαιοσύνη), so as not to desire to have anything more than another, but for the whole (person) to become sanctified by the churches of the Lord 310. Righteousness therefore is peace of life and well-being; The Savior sent her to her, saying: Go in peace. For Salih, according to interpretation, means peace: the king of this world describes our Savior, about whom Moses speaks: Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God (Gen. 14:18) gave wine and bread, consecrated food as a prototype of the Eucharist 311. And Melchizedek, according to interpretation, is a righteous king; the names of righteousness and peace are synonymous... But one should move from the metaphysical to the more open moral 312. This latter will be discussed after the treatise in hand. So the Savior, without using artificial means, Himself introduces us to the sacraments, just as it is said in the tragedy: 313 “Seeing those who see, he gives the sacraments (ὄργια)” and if you ask: “what are these orgies”; then again you hear: “what is unspoken is not appropriate for mortals who do not participate in bacchanalia to know.” If someone again finds out what it is, he will again hear: “It is not fitting for you to hear (about this), although it is worthy of knowledge; those who live wickedly hate the orgies of God” 314. Here Clement carries through the entire chapter the idea of ​​the need for purity of both body and soul for participants in the Eucharist, as well as the fruits of receiving the Eucharist not only for the soul, but also for the body. To participate in the Eucharist one must be reborn; a further degree is immortality (κατὰ προκοπὴν ἀποθανατίζειν), incorruptibility both in soul and in body (τὸ ἀδιάφθορον τοῦ τε σώματος, τῆς τε ψυχῆς). This incorruptibility is the glory of God, righteousness and peace; it is I. Christ himself, King of Salem. He, like Melchizedek, offers bread and wine, consecrated food: He himself introduces us to the unspoken mysteries. On the part of a person, to participate in righteousness or - which is the same - in peace, the glory of God, in incorruption, in the Eucharist, in consecrated food, means “to be a completely consecrated church of the Lord” 315. The last chapter significantly weakens the impression made by those chapters in which Clement compares the Eucharist with the highest degree of pagan mysteries, and in which he looks at this great sacrament solely, apparently, as a symbol in which believers can contemplate Christ. The idea of ​​a person participating in the Eucharist acquiring a guarantee of incorruption not only in the soul, but also in the body, is so alien to symbolism in the teaching of the Eucharist (usually attributed to Clement by the vast majority of Western theologians) that it is able to stop the decisive verdict on Clement as a symbolist in this respect. This idea naturally leads to the assumption whether he did not recognize the actual presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, but looking at his passion for allegorism and whether he did not interpret this sacrament in the way he loved to do it, only in those forms in order to win the pagans to faith in Christ and in Christian institutions, adapting to pagan philosophical views and mode of expression. We hope that the following very important, but at the same time very dark place, to which all theologians pay attention, but which, as far as we know, no one has yet tried to analyze with due diligence, will help us in the generally difficult task of clarifying Clement’s true view of the Eucharist. In one of the chapters of the “Pedagogue”, devoted to a discussion “about how one should behave regarding drinking,” Clement, having said that the most natural drink is water, which is why it was given to a Jew in the desert from stone, continues: “Then the holy grapes grew a prophetic grape cluster. For those brought from wandering to tranquility, this is a sign, (i.e.) a great bunch of grapes (is) the Word squeezed out for you, since the Word wanted the blood of the grape to be mixed with water, just as His blood is mixed with salvation. The blood of the Lord is twofold. One (blood) of His is fleshly, with which we are delivered from destruction, and the other, with which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus means to perceive the incorruptibility of the Lord. The power of the Word is Spirit, as the flesh is blood. Analogously, therefore, wine is mixed with water, and the Spirit with man. The first - confusion feeds well for faith, and the second - the Spirit - leads to incorruption. And the mixture again (αὖθις) of both, (namely) both drink and Word, was called the Eucharist, glorious and good grace. Those who receive it with faith are sanctified both in body and soul; since the will of the Father mysteriously mixes man, this divine mixing, with the Spirit and the Word: for in truth the Spirit is united with the soul carried by him; flesh with the Word, for whose sake the Word became flesh" 316. In the first half of this passage, Clement seems to us to have in mind baptism and confirmation. First, he says that the Word, which led the Jews through the desert, at the end of their wanderings, was pleased to add, to mix with the previous drink He gave, water, also the blood of the grape. He did this in order to point 1) to the Word Himself, as if to a bunch of grapes, “squeezed for us,” and 2) to the fact that the blood of His Word “is mixed with (our) salvation” and is part of our salvation, just as the Jews, when they began to drink not only water, but also wine from the grapes of Palestine, could consider themselves saved from the dangers of wandering in the desert. Further, Clement reveals exactly how “His blood is mixed with (our) salvation,” “The Blood of the Lord is twofold, carnal and spiritual; We have been delivered from carnal destruction from spiritual destruction, but we have been anointed.” But can there be spiritual blood and in what sense? “The Spirit in relation to the Word is the same as blood in relation to the flesh,” i.e. something essential that constitutes the substance (οὐσίαν) of the Word; 317 Therefore the Spirit may be called the blood of the Word; and therefore we can say that the Word incarnate has, as it were, two bloods: bodily, human, with which we are delivered from destruction, and another spiritual, divine, with which we are anointed. “Accordingly (with this double blood) wine is united with water and this mixture feeds well for faith, and the Spirit is united with man and this connection leads the latter to a loop.” Comparing the previous thought “about bodily blood, by which we are delivered from destruction,” with the last thought (obviously corresponding to the first – ἀναλόγως) about “the combination of wine with water, a connection that brings with it good nutrition εἰς πίστιν” and then the above expressed thought “about spiritual blood with which we are anointed,” with the subsequent thought about “the union of the Spirit with man, a union leading εἰς ἀφθαρσίαν,” we come to the conclusion that in the last place we are talking about baptism, in which the Word-wine is united with water, and about anointing, in which the Spirit of God unites with man in order to lead him to Eucharist=incorruption. It is not at all strange that Clement used the word wine instead of blood: mixing “wine with water... nourishes well for faith, and mixing the Spirit with man... leads to incorruption.” He said above that the Word is “a bunch of grapes pressed for us” and called the juice of wine “the blood of the grape”; and therefore he could express the thought of the suffering of the Savior, through which we are cleansed in the waters of baptism, under the image of the blood of this Grape squeezed out for us - blood that colors the waters of baptism and unites with the latter, like wine with water. So in baptism the bodily blood of the Word is mixed with water, with which we are thus delivered from destruction and nourished for faith 318, and in anointing we receive His spiritual blood - the Holy Spirit, which leads us to incorruption or, which is the same, prompts us to hasten to the breast of the Father, to the milk of the Father, to the Word, to His communion in the Eucharist, which is then immediately spoken of 319. “And the mixing again (αὖθις) of this and that blood, drink and Word, is called the Eucharist.” So, in addition to the two connections mentioned above - bodily blood with water and spiritual blood with man, in baptism and anointing - there is also a “new connection of both blood.” This new connection is the connection of “drinking with the Word.” This combination of bodily and spiritual blood, drink and the Word is “called the Eucharist.” Why is this new connection being made? In order for those who receive this combination of drink and the Word to be sanctified both in body and soul (σῶμα καί ψυχὴν).” How were they sanctified? The Eucharist is a mixture of the sensual and the spiritual, the bodily blood and the spiritual; and man, as a “divine mixture,” also consists of sensory and spiritual elements, of body and soul; therefore, it is very natural that “the Spirit (the divine nature, or the spiritual blood of the Word, in the Eucharist) is united with the soul carried by Him, and the Word (the Eucharistic flesh of the Savior) with the flesh for the sake of which the Word became flesh.” This is what really happens: “The Father wanted to mysteriously unite a person... with the Spirit and with the Word." And such a union of the human two-sided being with the two natures of the Word in the Eucharist occurs “in reality (ὠς ἀληθῶς),” not in an idea, not in a mental representation. If thus, according to Clement, a person in receiving the Eucharist receives for both parts of his being characteristic of each of his natures, for the body - homogeneous with the body, namely the Word infused, the bodily composition of the Son of God, and for the soul - the Spirit, the divine nature of the Word, then it is clear that the Eucharist, according to Clement, should contain not only the spiritual blood of the Word, or the grace of the Spirit, but also bodily blood, or true flesh and blood Savior. Otherwise, how will the flesh be united with the flesh of the Word if the latter is not in the Eucharist? Now it is clear why the Eucharist is a mixture of both bloods (ἀμφοῖν). It is also clear why in another place in the same book the Savior is called both the Spirit and the Word... the incarnate Spirit, that is, the incarnate Divinity 320. After all of the above, it seems to us that there is no doubt that this very dark place, when considered in the light of other places, receives a certain meaning and, moreover, favorable for Clement’s Orthodoxy. In this place he bears witness to the general Church belief in the actual presence of the true body of Christ in the Eucharistic elements, although he does not here give any basis for judging how he imagined the presence of body and blood in the Eucharist, whether with or without the transubstantiation of the elements. As an extreme allegorist, Clement talks about the Eucharist in a way that gives him wide scope for all sorts of connections between it and objects that have only a distant resemblance to it. But through this thick allegorical cover, under which he hides his true views on this sacrament, the general church belief in the Eucharist shines through: 1) as a sacrifice in which Christ himself offers himself every time for the complete sanctification of man in body and soul; 2) a view of this sacrament as the union of the deity and humanity of I. Christ with the visible elements, whereby the Word, as Spirit and flesh, is united with drink, that is, with the visible elements, and the Eucharist is a means for the union of man, consisting of soul and body, with the deity and humanity, which are actually found in the Eucharistic elements, and are not merely imagined or contemplated 321 . IV. About repentance. Clement places this sacrament very highly, comparing it with baptism. Just as baptism is intended to cleanse a person from sins committed before him, so repentance is appointed to blot out sins committed after baptism; and therefore Clement directly calls it the second baptism. Places related to repentance are found in the Stromata, especially in the essay “Which Rich Man Will Be Saved.” There are many passages in the Stromata that speak of the cleansing of those who have fallen into sins after baptism; but all these places are too general for one to draw a conclusion from them in favor of the doctrine of repentance as a sacred act that through the priest imparts the grace-filled gift of forgiveness of sins to the repentant. These kinds of passages, relating to public repentance, are remarkable mainly for the use that Roman Catholics make of them 322. The fact is that when encountering the expressions κόλασις, καθαρσία, τιμορία, παιδεία in these places, the latter see in them an indication of the purification of souls in the future world through purgatory torment. But since at the same time they cannot help but notice that in many similar places they talk about the cleansing of a person not only from light sins, but from serious ones, they do not hesitate to accuse Clement of an error akin to Origen’s opinion about the universal ἀποκατάστασις. Here are a few places of this kind. Discussing in one place how to distinguish true faith from heresy 323 and noting that there are two principles of all sin: foolishness (ἄνοια) and weakness (ἀσθένεια), Clement goes on to say that accordingly there are two methods of correction (δύο παιδείαι), for the foolish - γνῶσις and instructions from St. Scripture, and for the weak - ἀσκήσις according to the Word out of faith and fear. Oh, if only, Clement continues, the heretics would reform and turn to God! If they do not correct themselves, then let God correct them: let them patiently endure the fatherly admonitions that occur before the trial, and repent ashamed, and not expose themselves to ultimate condemnation by stubborn disobedience 324. “For there are certain private corrections (παιδείαι), which we call punishments (κολάσεις): many of us who fall into sins and fall out of the people of God are subjected to them. But we are punished (κολαζόμεθα) by Providence, like children by a father or a teacher. The father does not torment (οὐ τιμωρεῖται); for torment is the infliction of evil, and he punishes in general and in particular for the benefit of those being punished” 325. This is nothing more than an excellent and completely clear reasoning about the preliminary measures taken by the Church in relation to heretics and fallen 326 before the decisive judgment of the Church. Elsewhere, Clement describes the condition of a penitent who finds himself in the highest class of public penitents. Having first noticed that in the holy mountain, that is, in the highest church, there are those who have achieved likeness to the Divine, through the performance of good deeds, and there are sheep who are not from this courtyard, “worthy of another, that is, a courtyard and another place, according to their faith” and that one cannot be saved by faith alone, but works are also needed 327, he continues: “the incontinent one will not be faithful, but even if he has been put off and flesh (ἐξέλθη τὴν σάρκα), he must (still) put aside passions so that he can take his own place. To know is much higher than to believe how to be worthy, after being saved, of the highest honor, without a doubt, higher than to receive salvation alone. So, a believer who has been led astray by passions, through much correction (παιδείαι), moves on to the greatest punishment (κόλασιν), better in comparison with his previous state, bringing repentance according to the nature of those sins that he committed after baptism. He heals even more, either for the time being or without even receiving at all what he sees others participating in 328 . It is further said that such a person suffers shame and is tormented by regret for what he has lost and, even after the cessation of purifying punishments, constantly feels grief that he, nevertheless, as unworthy, is not with those who are justly honored with glory. In these words one cannot help but see an image of the state of a penitent of the highest degree, namely, either listening, or even standing with the faithful 329. Let us cite one more place where a Gnostic is described, that is, a Christian who stands at the highest degree of moral perfection. Here, by the way, it is said that such a person, in addition to many other virtues, has the following: he not only “does not partake of the blessings of the world, out of the greatness of his spirit, neglecting everything that is here, (but also) treats with compassion those who are corrected after death, involuntarily confessing their sins; he has a good conscience for the outcome and is always ready for the way a stranger and stranger (treats) the local inheritance” 330. Here we are describing a person who is so morally perfect that, despising all the blessings of the world, he does not look proudly at those who, thanks to attachment to the world, fall and die in spirit; on the contrary, he regrets them, despite their very deep fall - such a fall that they even involuntarily bear repentance 331. In all these and similar places, strictly speaking, there is little to do with the dogmatic teaching about repentance, except for the general idea that sin causes spiritual death, and repentance, considered in its work, is a means to the return of spiritual life. A more remarkable passage is found in the essay “Which Rich Man Will Be Saved.” This passage is found in the story about a young man (the subject of special care of the Apostle John), who became a robber after he was baptized. Ap. John, this story says, having arrived in Ephesus and having learned the sad story of the young man, he himself went to the robbers, met whom he was looking for and awakened repentance in the fallen man. The young man “embraced the approaching elder, begging with cries as much as possible, receiving baptism with tears a second time, 332 hiding only his right hand. The Apostle, promising and swearing that he had found forgiveness for him from the Savior, begged (the young man), fell (before him) on his knees, kissed his right hand, as if already cleansed by repentance 333, and drew him into the church. Entreating (God) with abundant prayers, fighting together with him in constant fasts and cultivating his thoughts with various beauties of speeches, he left, they say, no sooner than when he restored him to the church and thereby gave a great example of true repentance, a great proof of rebirth (παλιγγενείας) 334, a trophy of the hoped-for resurrection” 335 . It is said here that the young man, who confessed his sin before the Apostle, received washing and cleansing in his tears, but that the Apostle, having brought him to the church, considered it necessary, despite the fact, to exercise him for a long time in various exploits before restoring him in the church. Does this not indicate the importance of confession (“second baptism of tears”), public repentance in the church (“brought him to church”) and hierarchical absolution (“restored him to the church”)? This passage, undoubtedly testifying to the extreme importance of repentance, the equality of the latter with baptism, does not, however, explain exactly what kind of participation the ap took in the final restoration of the young man to the church. John, as a hierarchical person, through what visible action he accomplished this restoration and what meaning should be attributed to this visible action. From all that has been said, it follows that, despite the far from small places in Clement’s works relating to repentance, the teaching about this sacrament from the dogmatic side is revealed by the Alexandrian teacher only in the most general terms, only the idea of ​​the extreme importance of repentance is clearly and clearly expressed, but its component parts are not separately characterized, its last act, the act of hierarchical resolution from sins. Clement considers repentance in its entirety, or focuses his attention on the sinner’s acts of repentance and the repentant’s declaration of his repentant mood in feats of public repentance. V. About the priesthood. Relatively much less often, Clement touches on the sacrament of the priesthood than on the sacrament of repentance; but as a result it turns out that the dogmatic data of his creation related to the first are more expressive than those related to the second. The above-mentioned story about the young man contains the following detail about the apostle. John 336. “After the death of the tyrant (Apostle John) returned from the island of Patmos to Ephesus and, at the invitation (παρακαλούμενος), visited the nearest regions of the pagans in order to where to install bishops, where to build entire churches, where to place in the clergy any of those indicated by the Spirit” 337. So it was not the community of believers who appointed bishops, but the apostle who was appointed for this purpose and who traveled on purpose. What is meant by clergy, who were also indicated by the Holy Spirit? and for whose ordination to the clergy (κληρώσων) the apostle purposely traveled to different places? Judging by the fact that the apostle deliberately traveled to ordain them to the clergy, one must assume that by clergy we mean presbyters and deacons, and by those indicated by the Spirit, clergy who, by their spiritual gifts, deserved the highest degrees. An indication of the activity of the apostle in various places makes it clear that the author meant, firstly, those churches where there had previously been a bishop, and then he was gone, secondly, those places where Christianity was just being established and nothing had yet been established, and thirdly, those places where Christianity, although there was, there was also a clergy, but without a bishop, therefore, where the clergy, not having episcopal powers, could not therefore fill the lack of its fellow members, the elders and deacons 338. From this story we can partly conclude the importance of the ap. John, and with him Clement, who conveyed these details, gave the placement to hierarchical degrees. But a particularly important place in this regard is one chapter of the sixth book of “Stromat” 339. Armed against the Gnostic heretics, who ascribed to some people one nature, to others another, to others a third, Clement proves in this chapter that in the Church there are indeed different degrees of perfection 340, as well as degrees of hierarchy, but the existence of the degrees of one and another kind is not determined by the nature or natural properties of famous personalities, but for some by exercises in piety, for others divine, by grace-filled election. He begins his speech by reasoning that whoever moderates his passions, brings himself to dispassion (εἰς ἀπάθειαν) and enriches himself with the deeds of a true Gnostic, he is equal to the angels, and through true knowledge, through love for God, achieves holy perseverance, “like the Apostles, for they were chosen, having become apostles not by any superiority of their natural properties - since Judas was chosen along with them - but they were chosen by Him who foresees the end in order to become Apostles. Therefore, Matthew, who was not chosen along with them, but made himself worthy to be an apostle, is put in the place of Judas. That is why even now (οὖν καὶ νῦν) those who practiced the divine commandments, according to the Gospel, who lived perfectly and gnostically, are allowed to be included in the elected list of apostles (εἰς τὴν ἐκλογὴν τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐγγραφῆναι). He is in truth an elder of the church and a true deacon of the will of God, who does and teaches that which is from the Lord, not ordained by men (οὐχ᾽ ὐπ᾽ ἀνθρώπων χειροτονούμενος), not therefore considered righteous because he is a presbyter, but because he is elected to the presbytery (ἐν πρεσβυτερίῳ καταλεγόμενος) he is righteous. And although here on earth he would not be honored with chairmanship (πρωτοκαθεδρία), he will, however, sit on twenty-four thrones, judging the people, as John says in the Apocalypse (4:4; 11:16). For one is truly a saving covenant, which has come down to us from the foundation of the world, through different generations and times, but is considered different due to the reason (method) of giving. Accordingly, there is one undoubted gift of salvation (σωτηρίας δύσιν) from one God through one Lord, giving help (to man) in a variety of ways. For this reason, the mediastinum that separates the Greek from the Jew into a special people is destroyed; and thus both reach the unity of faith and of the two there is one election. And of the elect he says (i.e. John in the Apocalypse) there are still more elect, selected from the church itself because of the most perfect knowledge and honored with the most magnificent glory, judges and rulers, both from Jews and Greeks, twenty-four, in accordance with doubled grace (διπλασιασθείσης χάριτος). Therefore, here in the church there are degrees (προκοπαὶ) of bishops, presbyters and deacons, in imitation, I think, of the angelic glory and its economy, about which the Scriptures say that it awaits those who followed in the footsteps of the Apostles and lived in perfect righteousness according to Gospel. The apostle writes about them that, lifted up in the clouds, they will first of all serve as deacons, then they will be elected to the presbytery according to their success in glory - for glory differs from glory - until they grow into a perfect man" 341. Having carefully delved into the above reasoning, we find the following oils expressed here: 1) Clement distinguishes between election simply as disciples of Christ and ordination as apostles. Judas was also awarded election to prove that election does not at all depend on nature, as a set of natural moral qualities; but he did not receive the apostleship, for he did not deserve it, as history shows, because it was not among the disciples of Christ at the time when they received a breath from their divine Teacher. Meanwhile, Matthew, on the contrary, was not elected among the disciples of the Lord, but later received an apostleship, like all the Apostles who were first elected and then became apostles - chosen precisely in order to become apostles 342. 2) Exactly the same thing is happening at the present time: election to the apostleship or bishopric 343 depends on the exercise of natural forces in virtue, on the improvement of the natural qualities of a Christian; It is for this latter reason that the most worthy people are elected to the rank of bishop, and not for the superiority of their nature. But election to this rank, as well as to the rank of presbyter and deacon, in itself does not mean much, since his ordination is much more important, more important because it is the final action that occurs after election, and most of all because election is a human matter, and ordination is the work of God; – it is not people who ordain, but God himself. 3) Moreover, not only election, but even ordination by God himself does not mean that these persons - elders and others - can, by virtue of the ordination they have received, consider themselves, or be considered by other persons, saints and set aside concern for their moral improvement. They are chosen for righteousness: but the priesthood itself does not impart righteousness. “He is not ordained by men, not considered righteous because he is a presbyter, but chosen to the presbyterate because he is a righteous man.” In other words, the grace that the presbyter receives from God at ordination is not intended for the moral improvement of the person to whom it is conferred: it constitutes a special gift of grace, sent down, obviously, not for the sake of his personal good, but for the benefit of other persons, members of the Church (although Clement does not finish this last thought). 4) One can say even more. Here on earth, moral improvement, not being a result, a necessary consequence of receiving the presbyterate, is not always even the reason for election to hierarchical degrees, although to a certain extent it contributes to the acquisition of these degrees. There are righteous people on earth who do not receive the degree corresponding to their righteousness. God, who ordains presbyters as deacons, does not want to honor these holy presbyters by presiding, that is, by being a bishop, or by receiving consecration as a bishop 344. 5) It’s a different matter in the future life. If the priesthood here on earth does not give holiness to the presbyter and holiness does not always lead to presbytership, then in the future life there will be something completely different; there holiness, or moral perfection, and the hierarchical degree will be closely connected with each other, will lead one to the other and will be a consequence of one another. There will also be bishops, presbyters and deacons. Election to these degrees will depend solely on the amount of moral perfection. Receiving the degree of priesthood in the future life will not depend on who had what hierarchical degree here; so that the righteous person, who has not been awarded the highest hierarchical degree here on earth, will receive this degree in heaven, “sit on twenty-four thrones.” In the future life, the hierarchical division that exists in this life will be destroyed: “the mediastinum separating the Greek from the Jew into a special people will be destroyed”; “out of two, one is election.” There, God will elect everyone equally to the highest, episcopal degree, without paying attention to what degree someone occupied in the earthly hierarchy: “as judges and rulers” they will choose “twenty-four from both Jews and Greeks by doubled grace”; there will be more bishops there than here on earth. In addition to the bishops, there will be, as in the local hierarchy, also presbyters and deacons. The transition from one degree to another will be conditioned in the afterlife by success in moral perfection. “Raised on the clouds, they will first serve as deacons, and then they will be elected to the presbytery according to their progress in glory ... until they grow into perfect men.” 6) The highest degree in the future life, corresponding to the local bishopric, is characterized as the age of a perfect husband, therefore as the fullness of moral and grace-filled powers. From this we have the right to conclude that, according to Clement, the fullness of grace is also granted to the earthly bishop. The expression “by redoubled grace” 345 also leads to the same conclusion to a certain extent. So, Clement 1) distinguishes election from placement in hierarchical degrees. 2) It is not people who ordain, but God himself. 3) The grace-filled gift of the priesthood is a special grace-filled gift, distinct from other gifts. 4) Apostolate, or bishopric, is the highest degree of hierarchy, having the highest measure of grace; other degrees: presbyterate and deacon, in comparison with it, are lower 346. VI. About marriage. Clement talked a lot about marriage, meaning, on the one hand, to teach the rules for married life, on the other, to refute the errors of many of the Gnostics, who considered marriage to be the work of another God, the Dimiurge. He often touches on marriage in all his writings, but he specially devotes his third book, Stromat, to it. Here he goes over all the most important objections raised by opponents of marriage, and puts it at a very high level, so that considering virginity a feat, he, however, does not at all belittle the marital state in front of it: “everyone, both those who decided to be celibate, and those who were married to have children, must be firm in their decision, not complacent to the worse... Both celibacy and marriage have their own ministries and responsibilities to Lord; I mean taking care of children and wife” 347. Here is his general view of virginity and marriage. Without setting out in detail his polemics with heretics and refutation of heretical objections to marriage, we will cite passages from his writings that serve to clarify the positive doctrine of marriage from the dogmatic side. “Marriage, they say to Clement, is the first union of husband and wife under the law for the birth of legitimate children” 348. The reason why he calls the first marriage marriage is partly visible from the following passage: “and the Church is not united in marriage with another, since it has a groom; and each of us has, if he wants, the right to marry according to the law, I mean the first marriage” 349. The reason, obviously, is that marriage, in order to be a true marriage, must be the same as the union of Christ with the Church, that is, one and indissoluble. This thought is even more clearly visible from another place: “If marriage (performed) according to the law is a sin, he says, then I don’t know how he who claims that God’s commandment is a sin says that he knows God? If the law is holy, then marriage is holy. Therefore, the Apostle raises this sacrament to Christ and to the Church: just as that which is born of the flesh is flesh, so that which is born of the Spirit is spirit, not only by birth, but also by teaching.”350 So, the first marriage is something holy, it is a sacrament that imparts something spiritual to the couple and is elevated by the Apostle to Christ and the Church. A second marriage no longer has such significance: those entering into this marriage 351, although they do not sin, however, those inclined to a second marriage should be ashamed of this inclination 352. What does Clement consider to be sanctifying in marriage, giving it holiness? Is marriage something sacred simply because it is a symbol of the union of Christ with the Church, or is it more than a simple symbol? The previous passage does not answer this question. The following, however, quite remarkable passage does not give it either: “marriage should be preserved from everything that defiles, as a sacred object” 353. The last words only convey the idea that marriage receives at least the same sanctification as vessels and objects used in worship, unless by holiness we mean exclusively the spouses’ preservation of fidelity and moderation in married life, therefore, subjective sanctification, sanctification in a godly life. The objective sanctification received in marriage appears more clearly in the following place. Armed against the heretics who said that “one should not marry and bear children, should not introduce other unfortunate (creatures) into the world and should not serve food to death.” Clement incidentally notes: “How could they not be unclean who call intercourse unclean, and yet they themselves received their composition from intercourse? On the contrary, among those who are sanctified (ἡγιασθέντων), I think the seed is also holy. We must sanctify not only our spirit, but also our behavior and life and body (σῶμα). For on what basis does the apostle say that the wife is sanctified by the man, or the husband by the wife” (1 Cor. 7:14)? 354 Why did Christ, he continues further, forbid divorce except in the case of adultery, and pointed to the words of God: the two will become one flesh? Let the Gnostics not refer to the words of Christ about the absence of marriage in the future life. In the future life they will neither eat nor drink (1 Cor. 17:13); In this case, let them not eat or drink in the present. The previous place says that for Christian spouses, due to the sanctification of not only their souls, but also their bodies, the seed is holy. But when and how does this sanctification occur? The answer to this question is partly given by the passage in which Clement explains Matt in a mysterious sense. 18:28. “Who are the two or three gathered in the name of Christ, among whom is the Lord? Doesn’t He call husband, wife and child three, since God unites wife with husband” 355? This passage cannot be interpreted in the sense of the general blessing of God to grow and multiply, given to our first parents, and through them to all descendants; since here we are talking about “those gathered in the name of Christ,” therefore, about the blessing of marriage in the Christian church. If God unites “those gathered in the name of Christ,” cementing their union at the moment when their gathering in the name of Christ takes place, then one can think that Clement attributed to the same moment the grace-filled sanctification of the newlyweds, which he spoke about in the passages cited above. That Clement represented Christian marriage as combined with a well-known church ritual is hinted at in one of those places that talks about the birth of children. Considering their birth to be one of the most important goals of Christian marriage and seeing in this one of the direct actions of God who dwells among those getting married, Clement loved to exalt childbirth, especially in view of the Gnostic views on this subject 356. “Do not consider, says Clement, the one who sows you according to the flesh as the author of your being, but only as a co-author of birth, or better yet as a minister of birth” 357. “If birth is evil, since those who slander say that the Lord was born in evil, and the Virgin gave birth in evil; - about how much evil? - then they slander the will of God, slandering the mystery of creation, birth” 358. Further, condemning some of the Gnostics who explained the origin of marriage by the inspiration of the serpent and believed that the first parents did not previously have such a nature inclined towards marriage, he notes that “although their nature, as dumb, led them to childbearing, they inclined towards it sooner than they should have, being still young, succumbing to deception. Fair, of course, is God’s judgment in relation to those who did not wait for God’s will; but birth is also holy, through which the world is made, through which beings, through which natures, through which angels, through which powers, through which souls, through which the commandments, through which the law, through which the Gospel, through which the knowledge of God” 359. “How would the dispensation for us, which takes place in the Church, be completed without the body, when the Head of the Church himself spent his life in the body, without form or kindness, thereby teaching us to look at the formless and incorporeal essence of the divine cause” 360? Having spoken about how the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil must be understood and having resolved the objection: isn’t eating from the tree of knowledge a marital relationship between a man and a woman, called “knowledge” in Scripture, and therefore isn’t this relationship a sin, a fall, Clement continues: “Didn’t our Savior heal both soul and body from passions? If the flesh is hostile to the soul, then He would not strengthen the part hostile to it (the soul), giving it health. 361 But I tell you this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, and corruption does not inherit incorruption (I Cor. 15:50). For sin, being corruption, cannot have fellowship with incorruptibility, which is righteousness. Are you so foolish, he says, that having begun in the Spirit, you are now being finished in the flesh (Gal. 3:3)” 362. Clement wants to say here that if marriage were a sin, then it would not be performed in connection with the liturgy and those getting married (as was the case in ancient times) would not partake of the body of Christ. “Sin, being corruption, cannot have fellowship with incorruptibility, which is righteousness.” From all the passages cited, it is clear that marriage is something sacred, that it imparts something spiritual to the couple. He is the mystery in Christ and in the Church. It is like a sacred object. God unites husband and wife and dwells among them; He sanctifies not only their souls, but also overshadows their bodies with his power. The birth of children also takes place with the participation of God; it is the secret of the creation of a new personality. Finally, marriage cannot but be holy simply because it takes place in connection with the Eucharist. From all this it is clear how Clement elevated marriage, it is also clear that to those getting married in the Christian church he assimilated the special grace of God that sanctified their union for the birth of children; but he did not clarify the immediate relationship of grace bestowed in marriage to church priesthood. VII. Scope of the concept μυστήριον. As we have seen, the main expression denoting several sacramental acts in Clement, namely three - baptism, confirmation and Eucharist, was not the word μυστήριον, but the word τελείωσις. A person is made perfect already in baptism; receives even greater perfection in anointing; but the fullness of perfection is given to him in the Eucharist. All these three acts perfect him, giving him the perfect. Thus, although the concept τελείωσις primarily designates the stages of a person’s ascent in his spiritual development, but since this development is closely connected with the objective acts by which it is determined, τελείωσις also designates these latter objective acts. It perfects a person by giving him what is perfect (τέλειον), that is, a gift of grace 363. Thus, Clement also has in relation to τελείωσις that we have the grace of the sacrament in relation to the sacrament considered as a whole. As for the word μυστήριον, Clement does not use it to designate the totality of several sacred rites that elevate a person to perfection. As can be seen from one place where he draws attention to the production of the word μυστήριον, finding its root in pagan theology, he did not consider this word decent to designate Christian sacraments 364. If, however, he sometimes uses words derived from μυστήριον, and even adopts this name for some of the sacraments, for example, baptism and marriage, then this is an exception to the general rule. For the most part, he used the word μυστήριον in the same way as other fathers used it, namely, either in the sense of everything mysterious, incomprehensible, or more particularly in the meaning of a prototype, symbol, etc., then in the meaning of the cover imposed on the teaching, and hence in the meaning of the teaching itself. We will not cite those places where this word is used by Clement in the general meaning of everything incomprehensible 365, but we will give several cases of the use of this word in the sense of type, symbol, etc. In the meaning of the prototype, Clement uses it very often, replacing it with the word τύπος, which is also often used by him. So Abimelech, looking at the play of Isaac and Rebekah, is, according to Clement, “a certain premium wisdom, looking at παιδείας μυστήριον,” since Isaac, freed from death, is Christ, and Rebekah is the Church 366. Isaac, whose name means laughter, being a type of the Lord, “rejoiced representatively (μυστικῶς), foretelling that the Lord will fill you with joy, cleansed from corruption by the blood of the Lord” 367. Isaac, as self-taught, is a prototype of Christ (Χριστοῦ τύπος) 368. The fact that Hagar was finally subordinated to Sarah indicates that philosophy must submit to revealed faith. Based on this argument, it is noted that if one examines other passages of Scripture, one will find καὶ ἄλλα μυστήρια = other types 369 . In the sense of symbol, Clement uses the word μυστήριον in the following places, for example. Having called bread and wine symbols in one place (διὰ συμβόλων) 370, he further notes: “you need to pay attention to the symbolic meaning of bread (μυστικὸν ἄρτου)” then in the same place states that bread, along with other names, is an allegorical name 371 . In Clement, both expressions (i.e. σύμβоλоν and μυστήριον) are found in the following connection: “Scripture called wine a mysterious symbol of the holy blood (μυστικὸν σύμβоλоν αῖματος ἀγίον) 372 . The concepts σημεῖον, ἀλληγορία, παραβολὴ 373 come close to the concept of symbol. To indicate the hiddenness of something through a sign, allegory, or parable, Clement often uses μυστήριον or μυστικὸς. For this reason, he called frank teaching, as given in a hidden form, τὰ θεῖα μυστήρια. Clement himself clarifies this in particular detail in the following place. “What you hear in the ear, that is, secretly and in secret (ἐπικεκριμμένως καὶ ἐν μυστηρίῳ), - for this is why it is said allegorically, to speak about it in the ear - preach, he says, on the housetops... For neither the prophets nor the Savior himself expressed the divine teaching (τὰ θεῖα μυστήρια) so simply, but presented it in parables (ἐν παραβολαῖς) in order to make it more convenient for those present” 374 . And the Apostles claim that He spoke everything in parables and nothing without parables, and if everything, according to Scripture, happened through Him, then both prophecy and law spoke their commands through Him in parable expressions. And the rule of the church faith is that the law and the prophets agree with the covenant delivered by the Lord. For many reasons, Scripture hides its inner meaning. First, that we may seek him more diligently, and always watch to the study of saving doctrine; secondly, to avoid abuse. “Therefore, the holy teaching of the prophets (τὰ ἄγια τῶν προφητειῶν μυστήρια), observed for the elect of people admitted by faith to knowledge, is covered with parables. The tributary character dominates the scriptures.” “A parable is speech from what is not proper, but close in what is proper, leading the one who understands to what is true and what is proper” 375. The tributary type of writing is the most ancient and it was often used by the prophets so that the Holy Spirit. could show that the wise men of both the Greeks and other barbarians did not know the coming of the Lord and the hidden teaching (μυστικὴν διδασκαλίαν) that He had to communicate. Naturally, the prophecy proclaiming the Lord, since it proclaimed something beyond the ability of many to perceive, in order not to seem blasphemous to anyone, clothed what was signified (σημαινομένα - the meaning of the speeches) in such expressions that could have other meanings. All the prophets who foreshadowed the coming of the Lord and at the same time the holy teaching (ἄγια μυστήρια), having undergone torment, were killed, like the Lord himself, who explained the scriptures to them” 376. The Apostles imitated Christ the Savior. Thus, according to the above explanation of Clement himself, to speak mysteriously means to speak in secret; and since the concealment of the inner meaning was achieved through the presentation of the latter in parables, in allegory, in signs, then speaking mysteriously unambiguously with expressions: speaking in parables, allegorically, in improper words, or signs. Finally, since it is in this way that all teaching is communicated, both in the Old and in the New Testament, then all revealed teaching is - τὰ θεῖα μυστήρια 377 . As an example of such use of μυστήριον, we will give two more places. “The teaching is transmitted covertly (τὰ μυστήρια μυστικῶς παραδίδονται) so that in the mouth of the speaker there is what he says, preferably not in the sound (of words), but in the meaning” 378. “Convinced that there is God Almighty and taught the divine teaching (τὰ θεῖα μυστήρια) by His only begotten Son, how is such a person an atheist?” 379. The first of these passages is especially remarkable, as it represents an example of the use of μυστήρια in the sense of teaching, and μυστικῶς in the sense of secrecy, influx, allegorism. In particular, the same name is often attached in the works under consideration to individual points of teaching, both Old Testament and New Testament. So the doctrine of wisdom in Solomon is called σοφίας μυστήρια καὶ ρήσεις ἐκ παιδὸς ἑβρέου σεσοφισμένου. The teachings of the ap. Paul about the Face of I. Christ also acquires the name mystery. Having cited several passages from the epistles of St. Paul 380, Clement notes: “other teachings were hidden (ἀλλα τὰ μυστήρια ἀποκεκρυμμένα) before the Apostles and were handed over to them, just as they themselves received from the Lord. What was hidden in the Old Testament was revealed to the saints. But another thing is the riches of the glory of this mystery for the Gentiles (Col. 1:27); this is faith and hope in Christ, whom in another place he called the foundation” 381. Calling the teaching this way, Clement, accordingly, called the persons involved in the communication of the teaching mystagogues. So he calls μυσταγωγοὶ τῶν ἁσεβῶν ψυχῆς those who, perceiving the wicked teaching themselves (ἀσεβῶν λόγων), pass it on to others 382 . Ap. Paul, having spoken about the third heaven, thereby showed that those who are there tend to lead chosen souls in teaching (μυσταγωγεῖν) 383 . It is remarkable that Clement also calls by the same name the work of God’s grace, which assimilates to man (not without the latter’s participation, of course) the salvation of Christ. The saints, according to Clement, do not want to seem saints, they are ashamed when they are called that, “in the depths of their thoughts they hide the ineffable sacraments (ἀνεκλάλητα μυστήρια)” 384, that is, the ineffable grace of God, which confirmed man in life according to God and has already declared its effect on him because in it there is confidence in the assimilation of the salvation of Christ. In general, it should be noted that Clement had a special love for pagan mystical terminology, often used τελείωσις (and related expressions), μύησις (and other words derived from μυέω), ἐποπτεία, etc. Individual sacraments, for example baptism and marriage, called μυστηριον 385. He especially liked to use the last expression in the meaning of a prototype, symbol, etc. and in the meaning of a teaching of faith, which is understandable given his tendency to allegorism. The general result of the study of the works of Clement of Alexandria. 1) They clearly express the idea of ​​the tripartite act of accepting those who believe in Christ into the Church of Christ; at the same time, confirmation is depicted as an act separate from baptism and equal to the latter in importance. 2) The teaching about the first two sacraments is revealed from the point of view of raising a person to perfection and therefore the conditions necessary on the part of a person for their saving effect on the latter are set out (and the teaching about the relationship of grace to freedom is very clearly expressed); the fruits of the action of grace on man in the sacraments of baptism and confirmation are depicted, but the relationship of grace to sensory elements is not clarified. 3) As for the Eucharist, Clement reveals the doctrine of this sacrament as a great sacrifice, as well as the idea of ​​​​the great significance of eating the Eucharist not only for the soul, but also for the body, and although in very unclear terms, he claims that Christ himself is present in the Eucharistic elements, both in his body and blood, and as a deity. 4) Much more than the previous fathers, he talks about other sacraments (except for the consecration of oil): about repentance, marriage and the priesthood. His reasoning about all these sacraments is such that from his presentation the idea necessarily follows of the unusually important significance of these sacred rites, as they impart special grace-filled gifts to the Christian. Namely: 5) repentance, according to Clement, has the same meaning as baptism: it is, as it were, a second baptism. 6) In marriage, which is something holy, there is a mystery in Christ and in the Church, God himself unites husband and wife, gathered in the name of Christ, in the midst of church sacred rites, and dwells among them, assisting them in the birth of children. 7) It is not people who ordain people to hierarchical degrees, but God himself gives those ordained his gift of grace; nature and even the moral perfection of persons have no decisive influence on this divine act. The grace of the priesthood is different from other gifts of grace; it does not impart holiness to the one who possesses it. The essential grace of the priesthood belongs to the bishop. 8) Of these three sacraments, only in relation to marriage and the priesthood can one find some hint of the relation of grace to the visible side; Regarding repentance, there are no hints of this, even weak ones. 9) In Clement we find the subsuming of some sacraments under one general concept, not under the concept of μυστήριον, but under the concept of τελείωσις, τέλειον, etc. The word μυστήριον, however, begins to be applied to individual sacraments. The intentionality of this way of presentation is evident from many places, especially the Stromat. At the beginning of this work (Strom. I. 1 p. 708) Clement says that he intends to present Christian “truth, mixing it with the dogmas of philosophy, or better yet, covering and hiding it under them, just as the kernel of a nut is hidden in a shell.” At the end of the same work (Ibid. 1. VIII p. 18 p. 556) he notes: “Having scattered one by one and at intervals the dogmas that enliven true knowledge, so that the sacred traditions cannot easily be learned by those uninitiated into the mysteries (ἀμυήτων), we do as we promised.” Here he says (ibid. p. 557) that the “Stromata” are not like cultivated gardens located according to a known plan, but rather like a shady, dense grove, “where fruitful trees are deliberately (ἐξεπίτηδες) mixed with barren ones, since the Scripture requires hiding from those who dare to kidnap and steal ripe fruits.” At the same time, he means the Greek philosophers, whom he in another place of the same work (ibid. 1. II p. 1 p. 229) calls thieves (κλεπτὰς), who stole barbarians from philosophy (i.e. from the Jewish priests). books) the most important dogmas; for which, in his words, he chose “the secret, symbolic, mysterious kind of philosophical presentation used by the barbarians.” A hint of the three-part nature of the act of introducing a person into the Church of Christ is contained in the following two passages. Speaking about the Divine Teacher, Clement notes: “and it seems to me that He Himself formed man from dust, παιδαγωγῆσαι ρήματι" (Paed. I. I p. 13 p. 863). In another place, refuting the Gnostic view of the difference in human natures, he asks: “Where (in this case) is the repentance of one who was previously not a believer - the repentance through which (is obtained) the forgiveness of sins? "Ωστε οὐδὲ βάπτισμα ἔτι εὔλογον, οὐδὲ μακαρία σφραγὶς, οὐδὲ ό Ύιὸς, οὐδὲ ο Πατὴρ; but there seems to be (only) God, or the distribution of natures, which does not represent free faith as the basis of salvation” (Strom. 1. II p. 3 p. 941). From the point of view of the Gnostics, according to Clement, all the means existing in the Church for converting an unbeliever to faith are useless: baptism, the seal, the Son and the Father, since, according to the view of these heretics, whoever was born with what nature will remain with such, no matter what is done to him. The expression “Son and Father” compare. with reasoning in Paed. 1. I p. 6 (see below). Both of these passages, which in themselves are far from clear and decisive, receive clarity and significance in the respect under consideration if they are put in connection with those passages that we cite below. καθόδῳ άγιάζεται. Ibid. ... ύιοποιούμενοι, τελειούμεθα᾿ τελειούμενοι, άπαναθιζόμεθα... Καλεῖται δὲ πολλαχῶς τὸ ἔργον τοῦτο χτρισμα καὶ φώτισμα καὶ τέλειον καὶ λουτρόν. Ibid. p. 280–281. He called Confirmation that way, in all likelihood, because he wanted to put it in parallel with the descent of St. the Spirit upon the Savior - a descent accompanied by a voice from heaven “Thou art my beloved Son”; Clement actually cited these words above (p. 280). The words: “this same thing (i.e., what happened with Christ) happens to us,” with which the passage under discussion begins, fully confirms this understanding of “adoption.” As for calling adoption “perfection,” an explanation for this is found in Clement’s further discussion. ... Κρᾶμα τοῦτο αύγῆς ἀῖδιον ect. Ibid. p. 284. This whole passage is very difficult to translate and understand. Ibid... θεῖκῇ δὲ τῇ χάριτι ἀφιεμένων τῶν πλημμελημάτων ένὶ Παιωνίῳ φαρμάκῳ, Λογικῷ βαπτίσματι... Μία χάρις αὔτη τοὺ φωτισματος τὸ μὴ τὸν αὑτὸν εἶναι τῷ πρὶν ἢ λούσασθαι τὸν τρόπον... Ἡ μἐν γὰρ κατήχησις εἰς πίστιν περιάγει, πίστις δὲ ἄμα βαπτίσματι άγιψ πεδεύεται Πνεύματι. P. 288. ἀλλ’ οί πάντες ἀποθέμενοι τὰς σαρκικᾶς ἐπιθυμίας, ῖσοι καὶ πνευματικοὶ παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ. Ibid. αί παῖδες πρὸς τόν Πατέρα – an expression that makes up the transition to the treatise on the Eucharist. It seems impossible to understand this place otherwise. Clement, - treating baptism as an act in which everything is accomplished through human faith and the grace of God, and which (the act) he liked to call φότισμα; – naturally he should have paid attention to the fact that faith existed in the catechumen even before baptism, and likewise grace acted on him in an enlightening way even in the state of catechumen, which is why even then he was called φοτιξόμενος (when he was in the last class of catechumens). Clement evades the partial distinction between faith and grace before baptism and in baptism, being content only with indicating faith without baptism and faith with baptism: “the catechumen leads to faith, but faith together with baptism is nurtured by the Holy Spirit.” We will try to summarize this very lengthy, but in many respects very remarkable, allegorical explanation of Clement, partly to complement what was said about baptism, partly to connect with his subsequent reasoning, which is closely related to the Eucharist, partly, finally, and with the aim of showing how unreasonably some of the Roman Catholics act (Schwane - Dogmengesch, p. 698), tearing out a few words from this reasoning and referring them directly to the Eucharist. “Just as milk,” says Clement, in its essence is the same as solid food, and the difference between them depends only on the form in which one and the same thing appears; so the Word, being one and the same, is either milk or solid food. By milk “we can mean preaching poured out on many; under food is faith, which has turned from the catechumen into a solid foundation... Elsewhere, in Ev. from John (6:54), the Lord expressed this differently through symbols (διὰ συμβόλων), saying: eat My flesh and drink My blood, clearly allegorizing the drinking of faith and proclamation, through which the Church, like a person consisting of many members, is watered and multiplied, made denser and stronger from both, from faith - the body and hope - the soul, like the Lord - made of flesh and blood. Truly hope is the blood of faith; It’s not for nothing that faith is sustained as if by the soul.” Turning further to those who think that milk signifies the beginnings of learning, and food spiritual knowledge, he notes that when by food they mean solid food, both the body and blood of Jesus Ἰησοῦ), then “their vain wisdom leads them to the simplicity of the truth” (Paed. lib. I c. 6 p. 296). On this occasion, the catechist considers it necessary to find out the meaning of blood. “Blood, according to Clement, is something primary in man”; but this, he notes, “some dare to consider blood the substance of the soul (πρωτόγονον τὀ αἶμα ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ... οὐσίαν ψυχῆς; see Min, in the note to this place - p. 296, reference to Stobaeus - Eclog. 1. I p. After this, having shown the mutual relationship between milk, blood and body in the physical nature of man - namely, having said that milk changes into blood and blood into milk, that milk is a liquid body, that, therefore, all this is one and the same, only in different forms - he continues: “In all respects this (milk) corresponds to spiritual food, which is made sweet through grace, nourishes like life, is bright like the day of Christ. And the blood of the Word is revealed (to us) as milk” (ibid. p. 297). For newborn babies, the wisdom of God prepares milk as the best nutrition, producing it in the female nipples. So for those who are born; so for those who are reborn. “But Christ the Lord, the fruit of the Virgin, did not delight in women’s breasts and did not choose them to drink (Himself), but when the loving and humane Father poured out (ἐμπομβρήσαντος), It itself became the spiritual food of the wise. O mysterious miracle! There is one Father for all, one Word for all, and one Holy Spirit, and He Himself is everywhere. One and Mother Virgo. I like to call it the Church. This mother alone did not have milk, because she alone was not a woman. She is a maiden and at the same time a mother, unharmed like a maiden; loving like a mother. Calling her children, she feeds them with holy milk, the children's Word (βρεβώδη Λόγῳ). She did not have milk because the milk was this beautiful child and her own (καλὀν καὶ οἰκεῖον), the body of Christ, raising a young tribe for the Word, which Christ himself gave birth to through bodily pain, which He gave birth to with honest blood. O holy childbirth, O holy torment! The word is everything for a child - father, mother, mentor, and nourisher. Eat, he says, My body and drink My blood. The Lord sacrifices his own food to us: he gives us flesh and sheds blood, and there is no shortage of anything to strengthen infants. Oh, wonderful mystery! He commands us to put aside the old and carnal corruption, as well as the old food, and having accepted another, new food of Christ (διαίτης), if possible, having accepted it, put it in ourselves, and hide the Savior in our hearts, in order to pacify (through this) the passions of our hearts” (ibid. p. 300–301). This passage is read immediately after the above words. Ἄλλ᾿ οὐ ταύτῃ νοεῖν ἐθέλεις, κοινότερον δὲ ἶσως. Ἄκουε καὶ ταύτῃ σάρκα ἡμῖν τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἀλληγορεῖ καὶ γὰρ ύπ᾿ αὐτοῦ δεδημιούργηται ἡ σὰρξ. Αἶμα ἡμῖν τὸν Λόγον αἰνίττεται καὶ γὰρ ώς αἶμα πλούσιον, Λόγον ἐπικέχυται τῷ βίῳ ἡ κρᾶσις δὲ ἡ ἀμφοῖν ό Κύριος, ἡ τροφή τῶν νηπίων ό Κύριος, Πνεῦμακαὶ Λόγος ἡ τροφὴ τουτέστι Κύριος Ἰησοὺς, τουτεστι ό Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, Πνεῦμα σαρκούμεvοv άγιαζομένη σάρξ οὐράνιος. Ή τροφὴ τὸ γάλα τοῦ Πατρὸς, ῷ μόνῳ τυτθεόμεθα οί νήπιοι ect. (p. 301). The train of thought in this very difficult place to explain becomes clearer when approaching another place (Paed. 1. II p. 2): Διττὸν δὲ τὀ αἶμα τοῦ Κυρίου (see below) and in turn contributes to the explanation of this latter. In the above words, milk evokes in Clement the idea of flesh and blood, and the latter of the Spirit and the Word, yet together - of Christ, who, like the Spirit and the Word, is a combination of both: both flesh and blood, and the Spirit and the Word, in other words, who is a Being who has a human body and soul on the one hand and a divine nature incarnate (flesh - Spirit; see St. Justin and St. Irenaeus) and suffering (blood - Word) on the other. Δῆθεν διὰ πυρὀς συνισταμένην ect. In Min's note to this place it is noted that it may be necessary to read: δίκην πυροῦ. It also says that the reading can conveniently be explained from the idea of ​​​​fire, by which the world should be purified. But it seems to us that this word hints at the suffering of the Savior - on the one hand, and at the wheat that grows with the help of heat, and at the bread that is baked through fire, on the other, and thus, it contains a hint of both the suffering of the Savior and the Eucharist. The Lord’s body absorbs blood (obviously ours), through the degeneration of our bodily organism, through the destruction of the corruptible in it, transforming it into the incorruptible. Ἀθανασία - the fruit of partaking of the Eucharist, see other fathers: Ignatius God., Justin, Irenaeus. Ἐν τῷ Πνεύματι τῷ αὐτοῦ κοσμήσειν λέγει τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Λόγου, ὤσπερ ἀμέλει τῷ αὐτοῦ Πνεύματι ἐκθρὲψει τοὺς πεινῶντας τὀν Λόγον. Ibid. p. 308–309: καὶ εἰς ἀφθαρσίαν διἀ τὴν ἀγωγὴν τὴν αὐτοῦ... πἀθους καὶ διδασκαλίας σύμβολον. Ibid. p. 309: πνευματικόν. Strom. 1. V c. 10 et 11. I. IV c. 25. Lib. V c. 10. First, Clement cites several passages from the Apostle (Eph. 3:3–5. Col. 1:9–11, 25–27. 1 Cor. 3:10. Col. 1:28), which speak of hidden mysteries, unknown to the Old Testament, and requiring perfection from those who want to comprehend these mysteries. Analysis of these passages leads the author to the conclusion that the apostle “calls perfect in Christ not just every person - because in this case no one would be unfaithful - but also not every believer, but every, so to speak, whole person, purified both in body and soul (ὃλον τὀν ἄνθρωπον, οἶον σώματι καὶ ψυχἠ ήγνισμένον), i.e. does not attribute perfection not only to the uncatechumed, but even to the catechumens, but calls perfect only the baptized, as pure in body and soul. As proof that “knowledge does not belong to everyone,” citing the words of Col. 4:2, - ending with the expressions of being awake in it with thanksgiving (σὺν εὐχαριστία), - notes: the Eucharist (εὐχαριστία δε) is performed not only about the soul and about spiritual goods, but also about the body and bodily goods” (pp. 93–96). The last words were spoken, obviously, with the purpose of showing why one who wants to be worthy of knowledge of the great mysteries, inaccessible to the faithful of the Holy Testament, must be perfect in body. Judging by this introduction, we have the right to conclude that Clement intends to speak further about the Eucharist in the proper sense. Then he again says that knowledge does not belong to everyone, that not everything is written to the Jews, that according to the Apostle (Heb. 5:12-14), only the first fruits belong to them, but that the Apostle, despite this, wants to lead them to perfection. Exactly the same with Ap. Barnabas, writing to the same Jews, first says that he is writing simply so that they will understand, and then, in accordance with the Gnostic tradition, the words (Ex. 33:1) about the land flowing with honey and milk, he interprets about Christ, “appearing in the flesh,” blessing “God, who has given us the understanding of his hidden mysteries.” On this occasion, Clement remarks: “not to know the Father is death, just as to know is eternal life - through the communion of the power of the incorruptible (κατὰ μετουσίαν τῆς ἀφθάρτου δυνάμεος). Not to undergo corruption means to become a partaker of the Divine, on the contrary (μεν... δε) rejection of the knowledge of God brings corruption.” (pp.96–97). Citing the words of Isaiah (45:3), David (50:1; 17:2–3), the apostle (Rom. 15:29), continues: “the spiritual gift and tradition of knowledge (πνευματικὀν χάρισμα καὶ γνωστικὴν παράδοσιν), which the apostle wishes to impart to them in his presence and when they are to be present (παρὼν παροῦσι) - for through the message it was impossible to discover such things (the apostle calls) the fulfillment of Christ through the revelation of the mystery... Not many of them are shown what lies in the mystery." Is it not the celebration of the Eucharist, together with the revelation of the teaching about it, that Clement is hinting at here? It was, of course, impossible to celebrate the Eucharist through an epistle, and teaching about it, although possible, was not convenient, since the epistle was read in front of everyone, even the catechumens. From Clement's point of view, the Eucharist could not be more naturally called γνωστικὴ παράδοσις or, as he below calls the Eucharistic food, ἐποπτικὴ θεωρία. Having quoted Plato’s words that one should not write about God directly, that one should beware of even writing anything at all, but should be taught orally, noting that the ap. Paul says something similar (1 Cor. 2:6–7; 3:1–3), immediately after this (p. 100) he speaks of the Eucharistic sacrifice (p. 100–101). Accordingly, obviously, for a special purpose, he reinterprets the words of Scripture (instead of Χρηστὸς ό Κύριος - Χριστὸς ό Κύριος) Psalm 33:9. The words of Socrates and Pythagoras, who, according to Clement, borrowed their views from Moses, then the words of Callimachus, Bacchylides, Isocrates (pp. 101–105). Ibid. r. 108. ' ἐστὶ τἀ μικρἀ μυστηρία, διδασκαλίας τινὰ ύπὀθεσιν ε͂̔χοντα καὶ προπαρασκευῆς τῶν μελλὀντων τὰ δε μεγάλα, περὶ τῶv συμπάvτωv, οὐ μαvθάvειv ἔτι ύπολεἰπεται, ἐποπτεὐειv δε, καὶ περενοεῖν τήν τε φύσιν καὶ τὰ πράγματα. Ibid. r. 112. The mystery of the seal is the sacrament of baptism. Σφραγὶς in Clement, as in other fathers, is sometimes used to mean baptism in a narrow sense. It can be assumed that Clement meant here three times immersion in water. Although Clement does not indicate anything like the lesser mysteries among Christians; but judging by the way he reveals in the “Pedagogue” the doctrine of enlightenment (Paed. I. 1 c. 6), which is received from the Holy Spirit, after washing from sins and after removing the guilt for sins, and which aims to strengthen the natural, although returned, but insufficient in itself, ability to see God, contemplating Him, we can, it seems, unmistakably assume that Clement found similarities between small mysteries, representing preparation for the future ἐποπτεία in the mysteries and the descent from heaven of St. The Spirit that gives a Christian the ability to participate in ἐποπτικῆς θεωρίας, or in the sacrament of the Eucharist. There is nothing to say about the similarity of the great mysteries with the Eucharist. Ibid. p. 1368–1369. See in note. in Min cit. from Platonov's Phaedo. Γένεσις γάρ, γένεσιv διαδεχομἐνη, κατἀ προκοπὴν ἀπαθανατίξειν βούλεται. Ὄλον δε εἶναι ήγιασμένον νεὼν τοῦ Κυριου. Comp. ibid. I. V c. 10 p.m. 96. Ὁ τὸν οἶνον καὶ τὸν ἄρτον τὴν ἡγιασμενὴν διδοὐς τροφὴν εἰς τύπον εὐχαριστίας. Μετιτέον δὴ ἀπὸ τῶν φυσικωτέρων ἐπὶ τὰ προφανέστερα ήθικὰ. In the edition of Minya in the note. At this point it has been rightly noted that Clement often uses φυσικὸς instead of θεωρητικός. Hence φυσικὸς βίος - contemplative life. Φυσικώτερα Clement here calls allegorical interpretations. Ἀυτὸς οὖν ἡμάς ό Σωτὴρ ἀτεχνῶς κατἀ τὴν τραγῳδίαν μυσταγωγεῖ. Ὄλον δε εἶναι ήγιασμένον νεὼν τοῦ Κυριου. compare with ήγιασμένην τροφὴν. Paed. 1. II p. 2. σαρκικὀν, ῷ τῆς φθορᾶς λελυτρώμεθα τὸ δὲ πνευματικὀν, τουτέστιν ῷ κεχρίσμεθα, Καὶ τοῦτ ἔστι πιεῖν τὸ αἶμα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, τῆς κυριακῆς μετελεβεῖν ἀφθαρσίας ἰσχὺς δὲ τοῦ Λόγου τὸ Πνεῦμα, ώς αἶμα σαρκὸς. Ἀναλόγως τοίνυν κίρναται, ό μἐν οἶνος τῷ ὔδατι, τῷ δὲ ἀνθρώπῳ τὀ Πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ μὲν εἰς πίστιν εὐωχεῖ, τὸ κρᾶμα, τὸ δὲ εἰς ἀφθαρσίαν ὀδηγεῖ, τὸ Πνεῦμα ή δε ἀμφο͂ιν αὖθις κρᾶσις, πότου τε καὶ Λόγου, εὐχαριστία κέκληται χάρις ἐπαινουμένη καὶ καλή ἦς οί ?? θεῖον κρᾶμα τὸν ἀθρώπον, τοῦ Πατρικοῦ βουλήματος Πνεύματι καὶ Λόγῳ συγκιρνάντος μυστικῶς καὶ γὰρ ώς ἀληθῶς μἐν τό πνεῦμα ᾠκίωται τῆ ἀπ᾽ αυτοῦ φερομένῃ ψυχῇ, ἡ δὲ σάρξ τῷ Λόγῳ, δι᾽ ῆν ό Λόγος γέγονε σάρξ. Comp. Paed. 1. I p. 6 rub. 296. οὐσίαν εἰπεῖν ψυχῆς τετολμήκασι (see this place above - in connection with other places). Of course, Clement could also represent here the outflow of blood and water from the Savior’s side, which took place during His earthly suffering, since the Savior’s suffering is closely related to baptism and can be thought of in inextricably connected with the latter. Τὸ δὲ εἰς ἀφθαρσίαν (–εὐχαριστίαν) ὀδηγεῖ, τὸ Πνεῦμα. Comp. Paed. 1. I p. 6. See the passage from Paed above. (1. I p. 6 p. 301), which explains the eating of milk by the newly baptized as applied to the Eucharist. Although Clement demanded, as we have seen, that a Christian should rise in spirit to a state of contemplation, such a demand could be in agreement with the general church view of the Eucharist. Therefore, it is not at all strange that we find passages in Clementa like the following: (Strom. 1. I c. 10 p. 744). See Minh's notes in Stromat. 1. VI c. 14 p.m. 329–333 and elsewhere. Strom. 1. VII c. 16 p.m. 540. Here the Alexandrian teacher says between us that three kinds of state are possible for the soul: ἀγνοείας, οἰήσεως, ἐπιστήμης. In the first is the pagan world; the second is led by heretics; and the third is used by the true Church. ...ἀλλὰ μὴ εἰς τὴν παντελῆ... ἐμβάλλοιεν κρίσιν. r. 541. It is amazing how the author of the notes in Min (p. 542 note 22) could find here a teaching similar to Origen’s teaching about ἐπανόρθωσις. We do not cite other places that give rise to similar conclusions, for example. Strom. 1. VII c. 10 p.m. 480, where we are talking about a Gnostic, i.e. about a Christian who stands high in moral terms, and where it is said that γνῶσις will lead him to the end, when “he will be free from punishment and torment (κολάσεως καὶ τιμωριάς), which we (probably the pastors of the Church) support for saving correction from sins” and “purification.” Strom. 1. VI c. 14 p.m. 329. In the previous chapter 13 he speaks of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, comparing the three degrees of the latter with the three degrees of the angelic and the degrees of perfection in the future life. Much correction - which leads to greater punishment, although better, but even more difficult in a moral sense - is when the penitent from the state of kneeling, prostrating himself before those passing into the church, covered in ashes, etc., moves into the class of listening and standing with the faithful, when he, even standing with the faithful, but not among them, sees them approaching, for example. to the Eucharist, but he himself cannot accept it. As for the expression κὰν ἐξέλθη τὴν σάρκα, especially tempting the author of the notes in Ming, then it - as a restrictive addition to the words “the intemperate will not be faithful” - has the meaning that not only the one guilty of the sins of the flesh, but also of the sins of the spirit (for it is further said: “must necessarily put aside passions”), subject to spiritual passions, will not be among the faithful, but must be among the repentant. There is no talk at all about the future life here. Strom. 1. VII c. 12 p.m. 508... κολάσεως ἀκουσίως ἐξομολογουμἐνους ect. Here, if we admit that we are talking about the afterlife, then it is not clear how the living can show compassion for the dead, since the fate of the dead is known only to God, and in this life we ​​do not know which of them deserves our pity and which does not. Moreover, ἐξομολόγησις among the fathers is used for the most part as a special term to designate public repentance (see further in Tertullian and Cyprian). Also, the fall is very often called by them death, or spiritual death (see in Klim. – Let us conclude with one more passage. Speaking about false prophets and deciding who should be considered the culprit for their appearance, he answers that it is not God, who only allowed their appearance, but the devil. “The devil,” notes Clement on this occasion, having free will, was capable of τοῖς δάκρυσι βαπτιζόμενος ἐκ δευτίρου. ὡς ὑπὸ τῆς μετανοίας καθαρμἐνην. The following passage in Stromata (1. II p. 23 p. 1096) is very similar to the last words. Discussing divorce and proving that the old covenant is the covenant of the same God to whom the new one belongs, Clement argues that the adulterous woman is dead in the new covenant, although she is not stoned. “For she who committed adultery lives by sin, but died by the commandments; having repented, as if reborn through a change of life, he is again reborn to life” (παλιγγενεσίαν ἔχει ζωῆς). Quis dives. n. 42 p. 649 (Compare Church history. Evsev. book III, chapter 23). At the conclusion of the story, painting a picture of the end of the world, presenting the angels who carry the penitents to the heavenly tabernacles, and the Savior who meets them, Clement notes that whoever believes in all this and does so, “he will see the end and proof of dogmas in the very outcome. Whoever receives the angel of repentance here (τὸν ἄγγελον τῆς μετανοίας) will not repent of this even when he leaves the body” (p. 652). Comp. angel of repentance at Hermas. Ibid. Ὄπου μεν ἐπισκόπους καταστήσων, ὄπου δε ὄλας ἐκκλισίας ὀρμόσων, ὄπου δε κλῆρον, ε͂να τέ τινα κληρώσων ὐπό τοῦ Πνεύματος συμενομένων. In Eusebius (1. III p. 23 beginning) κλήρῳ ε͂να γέ τινα κληρώσειν. It seems to us that the first reading should be preferred to the second; κληρώσων fully corresponds to καταστήσων and ὀρμόσων. We do not reject the fact that this also means, perhaps, the readers mentioned for the first time in Justin the Martyr, as well as the deaconesses mentioned in Clement along with bishops, presbyters and deacons (in Paed. 1. III c. 11 p. 677, calculating the injunctions of Holy Scripture relating to εἰς πρόσωπα ἐκλεκτὰ, he says: αἱ μέν πρεσβυτέροις, αἱ δε διακόνοις, ἄλλαι χήραις). But we must remember that at this early time the lower degrees of the church were only still developing and multiplying, and the title of clergy was applied, as before, when there were not even readers, mainly not to the lower degrees of the hierarchy, as now, but to presbyters and deacons. The bishop, on the one hand, and the clergy, i.e. presbyters and deacons, on the other hand, is an expression that is often found in Cyprian, especially in the epistles about the fallen, received into the church “through the laying on of the hand of the bishop and the clergy” (see the treatise on Cyprian). See previous Chapter 12 the same VI book "Stromat". St. Irenaeus also believed that there would be three degrees of bliss: “some of them will be taken to heaven, others will live in paradise, and others will live in the city.” But Irenaeus brought these three degrees closer not to the degrees of the hierarchy, but to the persons of St. Trinity. “This is a table with three seats (triclinium), at which those invited to the wedding feast will recline to dine. This, according to the elders - the disciples of the apostles, is the order and distribution of those who are saved, and through such degrees (hujusmodi gradus) they prosper (proticere), through the Spirit they ascend to the Son, and through the Son to the Father." Lib. V c. 36 n. 2. In this analysis of the train of thought lies the justification for why we translated a very mutual and difficult passage in this way and not otherwise: γενόμενοι ἀποστολοι, κατά τι φύσεως ἐξαίρετον ἰδίωμα᾽ ἐπεὶ Ἰοῦδας ἐξελέγη σὺν αυτοῖς᾽ ἀλλ᾽ οἰοί τε ἦσαν ἀπόστολοι γενέσθαι ἐκλέντες πρὸς τοῦ καὶ τὰ τέλη προορωμένου. With another translation, the meaning of these words and their connection with the whole place become completely incomprehensible, and the expressions ἦσαν ἐκλεκτοὶ γενόμενοι ἀποστολοι, and then a second similar expression, also seem aimless. From the repetition of these expressions it is clear that ἐκλεκτοὶ and ἀποστολοι are not identical expressions, that the author wanted to express two separate concepts with them. By apostolate, there is no doubt, here we mean bishopric. Theodoret remarks (in 1 Corinth. 12:23) that the ancient Christians ὀνόμαζον (see Min’s note to the passage from “Stromat”). Therefore, here we are talking about presbyters in the proper sense, since we are talking about the elevation of such presbyters to the first department, that is, to the degree of bishopric, which they do not receive despite all their merits. Thus, in this entire place there is a discussion about the hierarchical degrees in the proper sense, and not about the true Gnostics, whom Clement in the general sense sometimes called presbyters (for example, Strom. 1. VIII c. 7 p. 452). We do not deny that the part of the passage in which this expression occurs refers to the future life, that the words “by doubled grace” are closely related to the words “twenty-four”; The author wanted to say with these expressions that in the future life a greater number of individuals will be awarded the episcopate than how many were awarded the apostleship during the life of the Savior (not 12, but 12 12 = 24), and how many bishops are appointed on earth in general. But the very idea of ​​doubled grace, or deep grace, although applied by the author to a future life, seems to us to have been borrowed by him from the present life. We think that the use of the expression not ἀριθμοῦ, but namely χάριτος, was determined by the presence in Clement’s mind of the thought that episcopacy here on earth is connected with pure grace, of course, if we do not assume that the word was used by Clement by accident. It goes without saying that we do not present our opinion as indisputable. After this, the confusion of the titles of bishop and presbyter, found in the story of the young man (Quis div. c. 42), does not matter, where the person to whom the ap. John commissioned the young man and is called either a bishop or a presbyter. In this case, Clement obviously followed the apostolic use of the words “bishop and presbyter,” applied indifferently by the Apostles both to themselves and to other persons. Strom. 1. III c. 12 p.m. 1180: Ἔχει ῶσπερ ἡ εὐνεχία, οὔτω καὶ ό γάμος ἰδίας λειτουργίας καὶ διακονίας, τῷ Κυρίῳ διαφερούσας. Strom. 1. II c. 23 p.m. 1085: σύνοδος ή πρώτη. Strom. 1. III c. 11 p.m. 1173: πρῶτον λέγω γάμον. Strom. 1. III c. 12 p.m. 1185: ἄγιος ό γἀμος... Τὀ μυστήριον τοίνυν τοῦτο εἰς τὸν Χριστὀν καὶ τὴν Ἐκκλησίαν ἄγει ό Ἀπόστολος... οὐ μόνον κατὰ ἀποκύησιν ἀλλὰ καὶ κατὰ μάθησιν. Ibid. p. 1181–1184. Explaining 1 Cor. (7:5,39-40) says that the second section of this passage establishes monogamy (μονογαμίαν), that - contrary to Tatian's assertion that the Old Testament God is different from the New Testament - one and the same God of the old and new testaments, despite the fact that the old law allowed polygamy (πολογαμίαν), which God needed to multiply people, and the new one introduces monogamy for having children and taking care of the home. “And if, continues Clement, whom the apostle allows, due to intemperance and inflaming (passion), to enter into a second marriage, then he does not sin according to the covenant (κατὰ διαθήκην) - for this is not prohibited by law - but only he does not fulfill intensive perfection in life according to the Gospel. The truth is that heavenly glory is prepared for the one who remains within himself, observing the marriage union destroyed by death, immaculately and complacently obeying the economy (of God), according to which he was freed from obstacles in serving the Lord. But now, divine providence through Christ does not command to wash (βαπτίζεσθα) even the one who gets up from the marriage bed, just as it was in Old Testament times (Lev. 15:18); for the Lord does not exclude believers from the necessary birth of children, having washed them with one baptism for everything ordinary, and having embraced the many ablutions (βαπτίσματα) of Moses with one (ablution). Therefore, the law, not out of aversion to human birth, but predicting our rebirth through carnal birth, proposed washing (βάπτισμα) for the reproductive ability of the seed.” Ibid. p. 1189. “In order to shame and stop those inclined to a second marriage, the apostle speaks loudly, for he says: all sin is outside the body, but the fornicator sins in his own body (1 Cor. 6:18). If anyone, again attacking the law and the Lord, dares to call marriage fornication, he is speaking blasphemy. For just as fornication is greed for acquisitions, as opposed to contentment with what one has, and just as idolatry is a departure from the One to many gods, so fornication is a fall from one into many marriages.” So, the apostle, according to Clement, with the above words did not at all want to call the second marriage fornication, but only wanted to stop those inclined to marry a second time. Fornication is what is called when a person does not enter into a second marriage from the first, but from one marriage falls into many marriages. Strom. 1. II c. 23 p.m. 1096. φυλακτἐον. Strom. 1. III c. 6 p.m. 1149–1152. Strom. 1. III c. 10 p.m. 1169. Gnostics - tempted by many places in St. The Scriptures, both the Old Testament, which depicts a person as being born in sins, and the new one, which says a lot of very unfavorable things about the flesh as the source of sin, thought that birth is one of the greatest evils. Explaining passages of this kind (eg Jeremiah 20:14, Job 14:3, Psalm 50:5), Clement says that Jeremiah does not curse the birth, but expresses only extreme sorrow for the sins of the people; Job calls “the first movements after birth, through which we do not know God,” wicked. David “prophetically calls mother Eve”; “Although he (David) was conceived in sins, he himself is not in sin and he himself is not sin.” (Ibid. c. 16 p. 1200–1205) What is also remarkable here is how Clement interprets the words of Cor. 9:27: they are to receive a perishable crown, but we are incorruptible. This means, in his opinion, “that some in types of moderation (εἰς εγκρατείας) prefer a widow, as capable of neglecting already experienced pleasure.” Ibid. c. 17 p.m. 1189: ἀλλὰ συναίτιον γενέσεως, μᾶλλόν δε διάκονον γενέσεως. “Therefore He desires that we become again like children, turning (to Him), knowing the true (ὄντως) Father, being reborn by water, by this other radiance in creation.” The words of the apostle about pleasing an unmarried man to God and about pleasing the wife of a married man (1 Cor. 7:32–34) are not directed against marriage. And the one who is married and the one who is not “both are holy in the Lord; This one is like a wife, and that one is like a virgin.” Ibid. p. 1205: τὸ μυστήριον τῆς κτίσεως τὴς γένεσιν. Ibid. Ἁγία δε ή γένεσις, δἱ ἤν ό κοσμος συνέστηκεν, δἰ ἤν αἱ οὐσίαι, δἰ ἤν αἱ φύσεις ect. Ibid. p. 1208: ?? οἰκονομία τέλος ἐλάμβανεν. Ibid. Οὐκ ἀν δε... ἐπετείχιζεν αὐτῆ τὴν ἐχθρὰν δι᾽ ὑγιείας ἐπισκιάζων. What the last expression hints at is difficult to say for sure; One thing is certain, that the word ἐπισκιάζον was used intentionally. If the author did not mean to point to the conception of the Savior, then perhaps he meant here the power of the priestly blessing of the newlyweds, the overshadowing of them by the hand of the priest. Ibid. Ή γαρ ἁμαρτία, φθορὰ οὖσα, οὐ δύναται κοινωνίαν ἔχειν μετὰ τῆς αφθαρσίας, ἥτις ἐστι δικαιοσύνη. The last words contain an obvious allusion to the Eucharist (compare ἀφθαρσία = δικαιοσύνη in Strom. 1. IV p. 25: see above), which was a necessary component of marriage in ancient times. Clement wants to show how unreasonable those are who consider marriage to be something sinful - a marriage that is concluded by taking food into incorruption, as Clement likes to call the Eucharist (or as Tertullian put it: confirmat oblatio, see the treatise on Tertul.). Are you so stupid, Clement concludes his speech with the words of the Apostle, that having begun the marriage union by partaking of the Eucharist, then you do not consider this very union to be holy, spiritual, but sinful, carnal? We find an indication of the same subject elsewhere in the same book. Against those who rejected marriage, Clement cites in this place, among other things, the words of St. Paul, that people will appear who forbid marriage and eating food created by God, while nothing is reprehensible if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer (Tim. 4:1-6). Then he refers to passages from other epistles (Rom. 14:21. 1 Cor. 7:8. Rom. 14:19) related to eating meat, drinking wine and marriage, and says: “but he who enjoys with thanksgiving (μετ᾽ εὐχαριστίας) and who does not use, and also with thanksgiving and with abstinent eating, let lives according to the Word” (Strom. 1. III p. 12 p. 1185). For all this, see the treatises on the first three sacraments. In Cohort. ad Gent, (p. 2 p. 72–73) he derives the word μυστήριον or ἀπὸ μύσους, that is, from the abomination that happened to Dionysus, or from a certain Μυσῦντος Atticus, who died, according to Apollodorus, on a hunt, or from the word μυθήρια, i.e. fables, stories, and at the same time ironically notes that he does not envy such an origin of the pagan mysteries. See exclamations ὡ παραδόξου μυστηρίου (Paed. 1. I p. 6 p. 297). More μυστήριον κτίσεως (in the treatise on marriage) and many more. Friend. Paedag. 1. I c. 5 p.m. 276. Paed. 1. I c. 6 p.m. 296 (see above about Euchar.). Ibid. p. 305: μυστικὸν τοῦ ἄρτου παρασημειωτέον Paed. 1. II c. 2 p.m. 424. This passage constitutes the conclusion to the explanation that Christ transformed water into wine. With this action, according to Clement’s explanation, Christ wanted to show that he revived the watery in the understanding of the law, gave drink from the grapes of truth, a mixture of the New and Old Testaments. Because of this, wine in Scripture is a symbol denoting the blood of Christ. For the identification of the expressions – σύμβоλоν and παραβολὴ, see Paed. (1. I c. 6 p. 292–293), where, having said that the apostle said with the words: I gave you milk to drink, he wanted to accurately express the thought (ώς παραβολῆς) about the catechumen, - further notes that “gave me drink” is a symbol (σύμβоλоν) of perfect perception, because drinking is said about the perfect, and sucking is about babies. συμβολικὸν is also identified with ἐπικεκριμμένος and αἰνιγματῶδες (see Strom. 1. II c. 1 p. 932). Ibid. r. 352. A small chapter in Book I is devoted to a similar explanation. Stromat (1. I p. 12 p. 753). In it, Clement proves that the by wisdom he means: ἐιρημένα. Ibid. 1. VII c. 1 p.m. 408. Cohort. ad gent. c. 8 p.m. 192. Ephesus 3:3–5; Col. 1:9–11, 25–27. Ibid. 1. VII c. 16 p.m. 548. The way Clement uses μυστήριον about marriage is remarkable: Ἐκκλησίαν ἄγει ό Ἀπόστολος (Strom. 1. III p. 12 r. 1185). From the turn of his speech it is clear that he, for his part, assimilates this name for marriage, and does not only repeat the expression of the apostle. On baptism see Strom. 1. V s. 11 rub. 112. We have already cited this passage (τῆς σφραγίδος μυστήριον) and said how, in our opinion, it should be understood. Σφραγὶς in Clement, like sigillum in Hermas, is used not only in one place in the sense of baptism, but also in others, for example, in the story about the young man (Quis div. c. 42 p. 648), although σφραγὶς in this latter is usually considered by us to be an expression denoting confirmation. Combining the words: “he weakened his former care and observation, since he imparted to him perfect protection, the seal of the Lord” - with the expression found above in the same book (ibid. c. 39 p. 644): μετἀ τὴς σφραγῖδα καὶ τὴν However, we think that the first place needs to be explained last, and in the last σφραγὶς and λύτρωσις are synonyms. That is why even such an extreme Catholic as Nurri, whose dissertation in Minh (vol. IX p. 1453) is filled with exaggerations, is inclined to the same assumption and who, of course, would naturally want to understand the said expression as the name of anointing. However, σφραγὶς is sometimes used to designate confirmation, namely in Strom. 1. II p. 5 rub. 941–943. You might be interested in: