Книга третья

1. Opinion of Basilides on abstinence and marriage The followers of Valentine have a favorable attitude toward marriage, elevating marital unions 390 to the outflow of Aeons in the higher and cosmic realm and connecting human marriages with the original divine intercourse 391 . As for the followers of Basilides, they say: “The apostles once asked the Lord: Isn’t it better not to get married? And He, they say, answered them: Not everyone can comprehend this word, for there are eunuchs, some from birth, others involuntary (Matthew 19:10–12) 392. The Basilidians explain this answer of the Lord as follows: “There are people who from birth had an aversion to women. These people do well if, obeying their natural inclination towards abstinence, they do not marry. Here, they say, eunuchs are born. All actors are involuntary eunuchs: they observe abstinence out of concern for their glory 393. Those who are castrated by some accident are involuntary eunuchs. These involuntary eunuchs are not yet personifications of Divine wisdom, or the dictates of reason. The eunuchs of this last class are only those who become such for the eternal kingdom. Such people shy away from marriage, say the Basilidians, out of timidity before the labors associated with the marriage union and out of fear of the burden of care and anxiety regarding the maintenance and upbringing of the family.” But the Apostle, in the words: It is better to marry than to be inflamed (1 Cor. 7:9), say the Basilidians, wanted to say the following: “Struggling day and night and fearing not to maintain your abstinence, lest you throw your soul into the fire, for a soul occupied with struggle is far from hope.” “Therefore, get married,” says Isidore in his Moralia in these very words, marry a woman of strong physique, so that you are not separated from this grace of God: after the ardor of passion has quenched in yourself, pray with a freer spirit.” “But when your 394 prayer of thanks, continues Isidore, would turn into a petition and you would begin to worry about lest you waver on the right path and fall, and you get married 395. But here's a young man. He is poor, prone to carnal pleasures, and he does not want to get married, as Scripture requires: such a one should not shy away from gatherings with his brothers. On the contrary, let him say to one of them: “I have entered the holy path and nothing bad can happen to me” 396. If at the same time he was still overcome by doubt whether he would fall (through fornicationis remedium) into sin, then let him say: “Brother, lay your hand on me so that I do not sin,” 397 and through this he will receive help both in soul and body. Just wish him to do something good, and he will succeed. Sometimes we say with our lips: “I don’t want to sin,” and yet the heart is inclined to sin: such a person, out of fear of punishment, should not do what his will inclines him to, so as not to suffer punishment. Human nature has certain necessary needs, and these are natural needs. Clothing is at the same time necessary and natural; love pleasures are natural, but not necessary.” I cited these provisions of the Basilidians to expose them in their intemperate lifestyle, as if their perfection gave them the right to abandon the struggle with sin or to deceive themselves that by virtue of their very nature they would be saved, even if they sinned here on earth; from the very womb they are chosen 398. Let them know that this was not the thought of the first founders of our teaching. By presenting themselves as Christians, and leading a more dissolute life than the most intemperate of the pagans, for God's sake let them not bring reproach upon the name of Christ. It is about such people that it is written: False apostles, deceitful workers, etc. even to the words: their end will be according to their works (2 Cor. 11:13–15). Abstinence consists precisely in what it consists of, in paying little attention to the body according to the strength of the confession of faith in God. Abstinence consists in withdrawing not only from the pleasures of love, but also from everything that a soul that cannot be satisfied with what is necessary is not allowed to desire. In this way you can restrain your tongue, your passion for acquisitions, for pleasures; You can restrain your wishes. Abstinence not only teaches us moderation: it protects us through moderation from many bad things, for abstinence is the power and gift of God. So, what should we say in response to our opponents? We please chastity and those to whom it is bestowed. We honor monogamy and decency in it. But at the same time, we affirm that we should be compassionate towards others and bear each other’s burdens (Gal. 6:2), so that he who thinks that he stands, beware lest he fall (1 Cor. 10:12). As for the second marriage, the Apostle says: If you are inflamed, get married (1 Cor. 7:9). 2. Refutation of the opinion of Carpocrates and Epiphanes about the community of wives The followers of Carpocrates and Epiphanes preach the community of wives; from them comes the most terrible blasphemy that the name of Christ has ever suffered 399 . This Epiphanes, whose writings are still in circulation in the hands of many, was the son of Carpocrates and a woman named Alexandra. His father was from Alexandria, and his mother was a Cephalonian; he lived only 17 years. In one of the cities of Cephalonia, namely Samakh, he was revered as a god. There a church was erected for him from giant stones; altars and churches were dedicated to him; there was a museum in his name; and at every new moon the Cephalonians went to the church, made sacrifices to Epiphanes, celebrating his birthday as the day of his apotheosis, poured wine in his honor, held feasts and sang hymns in his honor. During his upbringing, he underwent a full course of knowledge under the guidance of his father and was initiated into the philosophy of Plato. It was he who invented the doctrine of the Monad 400 and with his father’s recruitment into his sect the Carpocratian heresy began. In his book “On Justice” he says: “Divine justice is communication based on equality. Doesn’t the sky spread equally on all sides and doesn’t it embrace the whole earth in its circle? Don't all the stars shine the same for everyone at night? Does not the Lord pour out equally upon all who can see the rays of the sun, which is the source of day and the father of light? And can’t everyone still enjoy the contemplation of this luminary (Ps. 103:22, etc.)? For God does not distinguish between the poor and the rich and the mighty of this world, the fool from the wise, the woman from the man, the master from the slave. Even in relation to animals, He acts no differently. By pouring out from the heights of the sky upon the entire totality of the animal kingdom, without distinguishing between good and bad animals, an equal share of light, He establishes the kingdom of justice, so that none of them has anything superior to the other and does not take away a share of light from its neighbor in order to double the light falling on its own share. The sun also generates food common to all animals. By universal justice the interests of everyone are observed equally; and in this respect oxen are equal to heifers, hogs to pigs, sheep to rams; the same goes for other animals. In this communication of assets, their fair distribution is revealed. Further, by one common force, in the same way, the bread is inseminated, every type of it. Equal and common food for all animals covers the surface of the earth; here they graze without any distinction. According to the arrangement of the Generator, it is equally distributed among all of them: such was His will. But regarding generation there is no written law between them. If it existed, the animals would destroy it. Equally they converge with the first person they meet and give birth because of the communication that the daughter of justice, nature, has established between them; still have participation in this communication. The Creator and Father of all things equally, according to the law of justice, gave them all an eye so that they could see without distinguishing male from female, man from animal; in a word He did not establish any difference between them. Having endowed all of them equally with the common gift of sight, He then rewarded them all at once, through their submission to the same law. Laws, says Epiphanes, are unable to correct human ignorance; they only taught people to act illegally. By special, private laws, the sacred communion established by the Divine Law was only destroyed, adds Epiphanes, and gnawed away.” He did not understand this word of the Apostle, through the law I learned sin (Rom. 3:20; 7:7). “Mine and yours,” continues Epiphanes, penetrated to people furtively through the law. Since then, people have not begun to enjoy in common either land, acquired property, or marriage, as they enjoyed before, although all this is common. For God created grapes equally for the needs of everyone; He did not deny his fruits to either the sparrow or the thief. It's the same with bread and other fruits. The violation of communication and equality began to give rise to thieves who began to steal animals and fruits. God, creating everything for the common good, bringing both sexes together through marriage, and thus uniting living beings, proclaimed community and equality as the highest justice. But those born this way do not recognize the communion through which they came into being, the communion of men and women.” And this same Epiphanes says: “If anyone marries, then let him not keep his wife only for himself, but let him provide her for common use, because everyone can copulate with everyone, as is proven by other animals.” This is literally what Epifan says. Then he adds, and literally in these very words: “In order to ensure the uninterrupted continuation of the race, God aroused in the husband a desire more frantic and strong than in the woman. And the desires for this cannot be drowned out by any law, no custom, nothing; This is the Divine law." And how can we dwell longer on the discussion of this teaching, which clearly subverts the law of Moses and the Gospel? The law says: Do not seek criminal inclinations in women (Ex. 20:13). And the Gospel: Whoever looks at a woman with desire has already sinned (Matt. 5:28). This word of the law: Thou shalt not covet (Ex. 20:17) shows that this is spoken by the same one God who gave the law, the prophets and the Gospel, for it is written: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife. But a Jew is not a Jew's neighbor; he is his brother, and they received the same Spirit 401. By neighbor we must understand every person from another nation, and in fact, how can he not be our neighbor when he has the communion of the same Spirit? Abraham is the father of those who believe not only among Jews, but also among Gentiles (Gal. 3:7). If the law punishes with death a wife who has gained the inclination of another man and this man himself, then it is obvious that the commandment, so stated: Do not covet your neighbor’s wife, also applies to the pagans. The law wants the one who, in its name, abstains from his neighbor’s sister and wife, to publicly acknowledge these words of the Savior: And I say to you: You shall not covet. By adding this pronoun I, this commandment is further strengthened. And that Carpocrates and Epiphanes rebel against God is proven by the following passage, which is found in his work, so widespread among the ignorant people, entitled “On Justice”: “Therefore, this word of the Lawgiver must be considered ridiculous: Thou shalt not covet, etc. even to this even funnier thing: your neighbor’s property. Didn’t He put this desire in us, which determines the birth? And here He Himself commands us to tame this desire, whereas He did not take it away from any of the animals. And these words of your neighbor’s wife, through which He transfers the common property into private property, aren’t they even funnier”? These are the amazing teachings of the Carpocrats. About them and some other unfortunate adherents of the same debauchery they say that their men and women, having gathered for a feast - because I cannot call these gatherings of theirs agapes, that is, suppers of love (such as the first Christians had) - and having eaten to their fill, so that the food would arouse the disposition to carnal pleasure, they overturn the lamps - for their justice, ah, was mistaken, their debauchery cannot endure the light - they copulate at random, as they want and with whomever they want 402. They also say that after such an orgy with women at the evening, they already during the day and from other women, no matter who they please, demand submission, I do not say to the saint - God save me - but to this Carpokratorian law. I believe that Carpocrates should have taught similar laws of dissipation to dogs, pigs and goats. It seems to me that he poorly understood Plato’s words in his work “On the State”: “All women should be considered as common property.” Plato called women common property in the sense that before marriage, anyone can marry each of them. Likewise, the theater is a common meeting place for all spectators. And despite this, Plato wanted that upon marriage a woman should belong to one spouse, and not be a common property 403. Xanthus, in his work “The Magi,” reports that the Magi shared a bed with mothers and daughters, that they considered it permissible to get close to their sisters, and that women were considered their common property 404. And this was not due to any violence, nor due to cunning, but this happened by mutual agreement; As soon as anyone wished, he could get along with the wife of another. It seems to me that Jude in his epistle said prophetically precisely about these heretics and about everyone who falls into such error: So it will certainly be with these dreamers (for they reject the truth, wandering as if in a dream and being in a state of daydreaming), etc. even to the words: And their lips utter inflated words (Jude 8–16). 3. How far Plato and other ancient philosophers preceded the Marcionites and other heretics in the doctrine that abstinence from marriage should be due to the evil that permeates the creation and to deliver people from the suffering, grief and sorrow to which they are born Plato, to tell the truth, and then the Pythagoreans 405 held precisely this opinion, i.e. that having children is evil. The Marcionites only updated this opinion. So, Plato, I say, believed that generation is a bad thing. Still, he was far from the doctrine of the community of wives. The Marcionites went further. They say that human nature is bad, that the material from which it is created is also bad, although it came from the hands of a just Creator 406. That is why they refuse to inhabit the world, the creation of the Creator, and claim that one must abstain from marriage, 407 boasting openly that they resist their Creator and strive for the good Being who called them, who is their God, and not for one, they say, who adheres to a different way of thinking and acting than they do. And due to the strength of this resistance, so as not to leave anything in this world that would resemble them, they observe abstinence - not out of respect for Him, but out of revenge on the Creator and so as not to use anything that He created. However, these same people who, because of the wicked war against God, have lost all natural feeling and sanity, these same people who despise God for His long-suffering and goodness (Rom. 2:4), they, refusing to marry, nevertheless enjoy the kinds of food 408 created by God and breathe the air of the Creator; and they themselves are the creation of His hands and live among His creative works. They, according to them, in this case present a new teaching. So be it. But at least let them thank the Lord for creating the world, because it did not happen outside of this world that they received a new covenant. But when we come to the question of principles, we will refute this false teaching of theirs in more detail. As for the philosophers of whom we have mentioned, and from whose teaching the Marcionites borrowed their impious doctrine that procreation is criminal, but whose doctrine they nevertheless boast of, as if it were a doctrine invented by themselves, they do not want to express to them, as if procreation was criminal by nature, no, but that it became such because of a soul that betrayed the truth. For they imagine our soul, divine in its substance, as being brought down to earth, as if to a place of execution 409. And in their opinion, the soul is attached to the body for purification. Consequently, this teaching does not come from the Marcionites, but from those who think that the soul is pushed into the body 410 and that it lives in it bound and that it is, so to speak, poured from one body into another. We will refute them later when we talk about the soul. So, it turns out that Heraclitus also cursed procreation. He said: “Those who are born want to live and give birth, but only so that their descendants endure misfortune and then die. Or better: they want to calm down from their evils, leaving behind children who must also die.” But Empedocles was of the same opinion: I cried, he exclaims, and grieved when I saw this unsightly world for the first time, to which I subsequently could not get used to. Nature changes our existence, making us dead from the living through death. Great God! How miserable is this race of mortals! How pitiful he is! Poor mortals! What discord and sorrow are you doomed to! Mortal people, people clothed with a body, representing nothing. It is unlikely that an unhappy earth feeds a creature more unhappy than a human. Theognis also proves that procreation is evil. He says: Of all the blessings for earth-born beings, the greatest is not to be born And not to see the brilliant sun; For the one who was born, the highest happiness is to cross the threshold of death as soon as possible and calm down under a pile of earth in the grave. The tragic poet Euripides says in the same sense: And cry when the baby is born, seeing it enter into a cycle of suffering. And when he dies and calms down from hard work, he should rejoice and be carried to the fire from home among joyful congratulations. Elsewhere he expresses the same idea as follows: Who knows? Perhaps living means dying and dying means living? Herodotus turns out to have put similar words into Solon’s mouth: “O Croesus! Every person is nothing more than a nonentity.” And the fable about Kleobis and Biton was written with the obvious purpose of cursing the birthday and praising death. As is the kind of leaves, so is the kind of people, In Cratylus, Plato puts the word into the mouth of Orpheus that “by investing it with a body, the soul is punished.” Here are the words of Plato: “Some argue that the body (σῶμα) is the grave (σῆμα) of the soul, because in real life it is, as it were, buried. And since the soul expresses its states through the body, the body can also be considered a sign (σῆμα) of the soul.” It seems that Orpheus called the body this way because the soul in it suffers punishment for previous misdeeds. By the way, here we recall the words of Philolaus. This Pythagorean tells us: “Theologians and ancient fortune-tellers testify that the soul was attached to the body in order to wash away past crimes and so that it remained buried in the body as in a grave.” But Pindar, speaking about the Eleusinian Mysteries, makes the following conclusion: “Whoever has seen them will descend into the bowels of the earth happy. He knows the end of life. He knows the power given to Zeus." Plato in the Phaedo was also not afraid to write the following words: “The founders of the mysteries did nothing less than this for us,” and so on. even to the point of saying, “He will live with the gods.” And here are other words of the same Plato: “As long as we remain in this body and as long as our soul is mixed with this evil, we will never be able to fully achieve the object of our desires.” Isn’t that what all these writers are hinting at with their expressions above, that procreation is the cause of the greatest evil and misfortune? Plato once again testifies to the same thing in his “Phaedo”: “It may happen that regarding those engaged in philosophy, the mob does not know that all their efforts are aimed at getting out of this life and dying for it every day.” Plato adds: “This is why the soul of a philosopher has the greatest contempt for the body and tries with all its might to escape from it, striving for an independent existence, free from its bonds.” Doesn’t Plato agree here with St. The Apostle, who also says: Unhappy man I am! Who will free me from this body of death (Rom. 7:24), unless the Apostle spoke figuratively and by this body of death did not mean the will of those who allow themselves to be carried away by vice. Plato, as it turns out, had an aversion to carnal intercourse, the beginning of procreation, even before Marcion. In the 1st book. of his work “On the State,” praising old age, he adds: “Know that the more the urge for voluptuousness dulls and subsides in me, the more the taste for science awakens in the depths of my soul and the deepest and most complete pleasure it gives me.” And when the question of carnal pleasures was raised, he exclaimed: “Congratulate me! Having thrown off the chains of pleasure, I feel as if I have been liberated from a cruel tyrant and a rude teacher.” And condemning procreation again in the Phaedo, he adds: “The thought that the mysteries secretly instill in us is that we and other people, being in this body, are, as it were, in prison.” And again: “Those, it seems, are superior to others in the holiness of their lives, who release themselves and free themselves from the bonds that hold us on earth, as if in prison, and depart from this mountain into a clean and blameless dwelling.” This was undoubtedly Plato's opinion. He understood, however, that the universe is governed wisely, and therefore said: “You should not cut yourself off from this life, nor run away from it, as slaves run away from their masters.” And how can Marcion say this in one word? Marcion has no reason to look at matter as evil when Plato wrote these pious words about the world: “Everything good that the world contains, it received from God, who created it. And everything that is bad and unjust under the sun entered the world from the state that preceded its creation, which is now transmitted to animate beings” 412. Then he adds these even more positive words: “The cause of all these evils for the world is the material element that is included in the composition of bodies, an element that was part of primeval nature. For before it was organized as it is now, it was, like all nature itself, ugly and disorderly.” And in the “Laws” (Book II), Plato grieves no less for the human race. “The gods,” he says, regretting the human race condemned to work, appointed for it the periodic return of holidays for rest.” And in the Epinomides, exposing what exactly is worthy of regret in people, Plato expresses himself as follows: “The beginning of life is difficult for every animate being. It must first pass through the embryonic state. Then it will be born. Then they feed him milk. Then they educate. Every thing, as we all know, is achieved only at the cost of difficult work.” But what? Doesn’t Heraclitus also say that “to be born means to die”? In this he agrees with Pythagoras and Socrates. In “Gorgias” the latter says this: “Death is everything that we see when we awaken. A dream is everything that we see in a dream.” But enough about this subject. When we discuss the principles of life, we will also enter into an analysis of these absurdities expressed by philosophers, of which the Marcionites compiled a special teaching. However, it seems to us that it has already been shown quite clearly that Marcion could trace his strange teaching back to him only through ignorance and misunderstanding of Plato. We now have to say a word about abstinence. We argued that the Hellenes, paying attention to the difficulties associated with the birth and upbringing of children, spoke a lot against this, and that the Marcionites made up a whole ungodly doctrine out of all this, turning out to be ungrateful towards the Creator. Here's what the tragic poet says: It would be better for mortals not to be born at all than to be born. I give birth in terrible pain. At birth, it turns out that I gave birth to children of limited intelligence. I am upset, but in vain. I have bad faces, I'm losing good ones. If I manage to save the latter, My unfortunate heart is drying up from fear for them. Is this happiness? Isn't it better Should I give up my life alone, so as not to look at the thousand sufferings experienced by others? It always seemed to me, but it still seems to me, That people should never have children Seeing how many evils we give birth to. And in the following verses, the poet clearly points out the cause of our troubles, taking it back to its original beginnings. He exclaims: O man! You were born for suffering and misfortune. You have become a man, and this is the lot of life, You received it the minute you started To nourish the air, which revives all mortals. Do not forget, mortal, that you are mortal. And in the same sense he says: There is not a single mortal who knows only happiness and prosperity. There is no one who would live without misfortunes. (Iphigenia in Aulis, art. 161). Alas and ah! How brutal and numerous are the evil destinies of mortals! And how diverse they are! And there is no one who would put a limit on them! Among mortals there is not one who would be happy to the end. And this, as they say, is the reason why the Pythagoreans abstain from carnal desires. But it seems to me that this is precisely why they get married, to have children. The only thing is that after the birth of children they already curb their sensual inclinations. For the same mysterious reason they prohibit the eating of beans; not because of the winds that this greenery produces, and not because of its indigestibility, and not because of the generation of foggy dreams by it, and not because of the similarity of beans in appearance to a human head, although this is imposed on them by these verses Eating a father's head and eating beans are the same thing. Rather, the prohibition to eat beans arose from the fact that beans affect the infertility of women who eat them 413. And indeed Theophrastus, in the fifth book of his work entitled “Natural Causes,” conveys that bean husks thrown on the roots of young trees dries them out; Likewise, among poultry, those that are constantly fed beans become sterile. 4. Pretexts invented by heretics to cover up all kinds of self-will and debauchery Among those who fell into heresy, we named the Pontic resident Marcion, who, having declared a struggle with his Creator, refuses to use the things of this world. But the motive for his abstinence, if it can be called that, is hatred, indignation against the Creator himself. In the struggle that this wicked giant declares against God himself, he condemns himself to involuntary abstinence, mocking creation and the work of God. He thinks to rely on the words of the Lord, addressed to Philip 414: Let the dead bury their dead, but follow Me 415 (Matthew 8:22; Luke 9:60). But let him know that Philip had a body structure similar to ours and did not look like a decomposed corpse. So, how is it that, being clothed with a body, he did not have a corpse in him? And such that he rose from the grave through the trampling of his passions by the death of the Lord and through his life in Christ Jesus 416. We have already mentioned the wicked teaching of Carpocrates regarding the community of wives, but regarding a certain saying of Nicholas, we left without presentation the following related fact 417. They say that he had a wife in the prime of life and beauty. After the Ascension of the Lord, when the Apostles began to shame him for his jealousy, he brought his wife into the midst of the Apostles and offered to marry her to anyone. This act, say the Carpocrats, is completely consistent with this saying of Nicholas: “You need to wait on the flesh.” The disciples of Carpocrates, accepting this act and the saying of Nicholas literally and without discussion, publicly indulge in the most shameless fornication. But, as far as I know, Nikolai did not know any other woman except the one he once married. It is also known that his daughters grew old as maidens, but his son remained celibate. This is how it happened. Having brought his wife into the midst of the Apostles, for whose jealousy he was reproached, Nicholas, through the very abandonment of exaggerated worries about her, wanted to justify himself in the passion that had been brought upon him and in the subsequent time, abstaining from relations with her, he actually taught that one should wait for one’s flesh, i.e. mortify your sensuality. For both he and his wife did not want, in accordance with the Savior’s commandment, to serve two masters (Matthew 6:24; Luke 16:13), i.e. God and lust. That is why, as they say, Matthew also taught that “you need to fight sensuality and not weaken the desires of your flesh, denying it everything that can support voluptuousness, but instead elevate your spiritual strength through strengthening your faith and knowledge.” There are still other heretics 418 who call the treatment and connections with Aphrodite Shatunya “communication” mysterious, desecrating this holy word through this. Just as we use the word “do” indifferently to designate both good and bad actions, still calling good and evil “deeds” by this name: exactly the same thing happened with this word “communication”. But saving communication consists of, for example. in assistance with money, food and clothing; Heretics, however, wickedly began to use this word to describe various carnal relationships with Aphrodite. They say about one of these dissolute men that once approaching one of our girls, who had just entered the age of youthful attractiveness and beauty, he said: Give to everyone who asks you (Matthew 5:42; Luke 6:30). This same woman, not understanding at all the carnal licentiousness of this man, answered him in the language of innocence: “But regarding marriage, you should talk to my mother.” O wickedness! These lawless people go so far as to distort the words of even the Lord. They do maintain communication with each other, but only out of debauchery; they are brothers, but only in voluptuousness, disgracing not only the love of wisdom, but also the whole of human life through the distortion of the truth, or better to say - as far as it depends on them - because of its ruin, these are threefold pitiful people, looking at carnal fornication as some kind of sacred act, and at the same time still daring to imagine that they are passing through it into the kingdom of God. No, not here, but into dens of debauchery this mutual understanding leads them; goats and pigs could be worthy companions for them; public women, shamelessly in the depths of their dens, always ready to accept any seeker of debauchery, in the eyes of these heretics are especially hopeful of salvation. But have you been taught this by Christ, if you have truly listened to Him and abide in Him? He, in whom there is truth, taught that one should put off the old man, according to which we previously lived, and which, due to following the illusions of one’s passions, only decays, and be renewed in the depths of one’s soul and put on the new man, created in the image of God in true righteousness and holiness (Eph. 4:20). Be imitators of God as His beloved children and love one another, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, presenting yourself as an offering to God and a fragrant sacrifice. Let it not be heard among you about fornication, nor about any kind of obscenity, nor about stinginess, as befits saints. Let neither obscene words nor wild gaiety be heard among you (Eph. 5:1–4). Teaching us to observe purity even in words, the Apostle writes: For know that none of those who stray from the right path, etc. even to the words: but also rebuke them (Eph. 5:5–11). The heretical teaching we are examining stems from an apocryphal book. I will even write out from it the place that gave birth to and developed their licentiousness in them. If they themselves composed this book, then what extravagance it is, and it is deceitful and deceitful to attribute intemperance to God himself! If they learned this book from someone else, then by perverting the meaning they mixed poison into this beautiful message of the Gospel. Here is the passage in question: “All was One. But after the universal Unity decided that it was not good to be One, Breath began to come out of It and It united with It; from their union with each other came the Beloved. Then another Breath came out of Him, with which Unity also united, and from this union came Powers (one of the ranks of angels), which can neither be seen nor heard, etc. to the words “he distinguished each one by his own name.” If these heretics, like the followers of Valentinus, had made spiritual communication the basis of their teaching, then perhaps they would also have found several adherents. But to elevate communication in carnal pleasures to the level of holy teaching is characteristic only of a person who does not recognize salvation. This is also the teaching of the followers of Prodicus, who adopt for themselves, but without any right to do so, the same name as Gnostics. Calling themselves by their very nature the sons of the first God, they abuse the nobility of birth and falsely understand freedom, living according to their own whims. These whimsical dreams carry them away to sensual pleasures. They declare themselves “free from all bonds of self-control,” “lords of the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:8) “and superior to all because of the superiority of their race, since they are sons of kings; for kings, they say, the law is not written.” Lie! Firstly, kings do not do everything they want. Despite all their desires and all their efforts, their will to themselves is hindered by many obstacles. And what they do, they do not as kings, but as worthless slaves, fearing punishment for bad behavior with whips. Secretly, although they allow themselves to look for criminal inclinations in women, they are constantly afraid of being caught in this reprehensible act, evade the court of public opinion, and avoid punishment. And what kind of freedom is this in intemperance and foul language? Everyone who sins, says the Apostle, is a slave (Rom. 6:16). And how can one live according to the commandments of God who follows every desire? How will he obey the Lord, who said: I say to you: You shall not covet (Matthew 5:28)? We already regret those who sin unwittingly. What can we say about those who sin intentionally? Are these not pathetic people who elevate the ingratiation of criminal inclinations in women into a doctrine, indulge in voluptuousness and orgies, and allow themselves to desecrate and dishonor the marriage bed of others? But if they were transferred to another world, they would not be in their place there, since they were not faithful in someone else’s (Luke 16:11, 12). Does the guest scold and insult the residents of the city in which he is received? Is he trying to harm them? Having come to it for a short time, will he not, on the contrary, live there as an honest man, taking advantage of what he needs, and from those who showed him hospitality, not offending anyone with his indecency and not causing temptation to anyone (1 Peter 2:11, 12)? How? Even those who do not obey the laws and behave as shamefully as those who are vile in the eyes of even the pagans, as well as the wicked and unbridled wantons and insolent seducers of women, and they dare to say that they know God? Living in a world alien to them, they would have to prove with their good lives that they have truly royal inclinations. Now, leading themselves and teaching others to lead a way of life contrary to the laws of both God and man, they turn out to be haters and enemies of both. There is no doubt that the Israelite, who, according to the book of Numbers, “pierced” the dissolute man, did a praiseworthy deed, as God himself testifies to this (Num. 25:8). And if we say, John writes in his epistle, that we have fellowship with Him, i.e. with God, but walk in the dark, then we lie and do not act in truth. If we walk in the light, just as He Himself is the light, then we have fellowship with Him and the blood of Christ Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin (1 John 1:6, 7). So, where did they get the idea that they are better than the people of this age who act in the same way? They are no better, but they are the rubbish of human society. I think that by nature they are outcasts from human society, if that is what their deeds are. Those who think of themselves that they are of higher origin must surpass others in their behavior in order to avoid being imprisoned in the same prison (with the evildoers) (1 Peter 3:19). For truly, as the Savior said, if your righteousness does not exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, then you will not enter the kingdom of God (Matthew 5:20). Regarding abstinence from food, examples in the book. the prophet Daniel (Dan. 1). Briefly speaking about obedience, David sings in his psalms like this: How can a young man keep his path pure? And the young man immediately hears this answer: By fulfilling Your word with all my heart (Ps. 119:9). I open the book of Jeremiah and this is what the Lord says: Do not walk in the ways of the pagans (Jer. 10:2). But here some other heretics, people of very limited intelligence and worthless, say that man is a creation of different forces. The epigastric part, they say, is a work of the most Divine art, while the lower parts are the work of a lower being; hence the inclination of these parts to sexual intercourse. But these heretics do not pay attention to the fact that the upper parts are also drawn to food, and in some they are voluptuous. By the way, in this they contradict Christ, who told the Pharisees that the same God created both the inner man and the outer man in us (Luke 11:40). And I will also say against this that lust does not come from the body, although it is satisfied by the body. According to the teachings of some other heretics, called Antitacts (opposing), the God of the universe is our true Father by nature and everything created by Him is good. But one of the creatures He created sowed tares, gave birth to evil and entangled us all in its nets, rebelling against the Father. And that is why, they say, we resist this being who created evil, so that through resistance to the will of this second Creator we can avenge the Father. And since do not look for criminal inclination in women, this word was spoken by this secondary Creator, then we enter into relationships with women that are prohibited by this creator of evil, and not by the Father, and we overthrow the commandment not of the true Creator, but of the evil creator. Our answer to them is this: Those who betray their true way of thinking by their actions are also false prophets, for we have been taught (by Christ) to judge people by their actions (Matthew 7:16). If your deeds have a bad reputation, how can you claim to adhere to the truth? Because evil either does not exist at all, and then the creature that you accuse of resisting God does not deserve blame; and it means that it did not create evil at all, because with the destruction of the fruit the tree is also destroyed 419. Or if the existence of evil is substantial 420, then let these Antitacts answer us: what will they call the commandments given to us regarding righteousness, temperance, patience, constancy, etc. items? Are they good or bad? If the commandment prohibiting all shameful things is bad, then evil makes laws against itself and works to destroy itself: an impossible thing. If the commandment is good, then these heretics themselves admit that by opposing the commandments they reject good and do evil. But the Savior Himself, whom alone, if you believe them, should only be obeyed, forbids hatred and resentment (Matthew 5:43 - 44; Luke 6:27 - 28), and when dealing with the enemy, He says, try to be reconciled with him (Matthew 5:25; Luke 12:58). Or, finally, they refuse to obey the admonitions and Christ, thus resisting the One who himself resisted the evil-doer. If they love Him, then they should not rebel against Him. What's next? O you (allegedly) nobly born and (allegedly) noble in your thoughts and dispositions, I say, as if they were before me, don’t you notice that by rejecting such expedient commandments, you are opposing your own salvation? No, you are not working to challenge the commandments issued for the benefit of the common people by proving their infidelity, but you are overthrowing your own salvation. And the Lord said: Let your good deeds shine (Matthew 5:16). You reveal to everyone only your lust and licentiousness. And otherwise we will ask you. If you are trying to erase the commandments of the Lawgiver, then why are you trying to erase only those of them that introduce sensual pleasures into the boundaries? These are the commandments: do not seek criminal inclinations in women (Ex. 20:14), do not commit sodomy (Lev. 18:22) and in general all those commandments that prescribe abstinence. Meanwhile, you are not bothering to destroy winter, although it is the work of the same Lawgiver. Why don't you have summer in the middle of winter? Why don't you care about that? To make the sea pedestrian and the land seaworthy 421, How did the barbarian Xerxes want this, according to historians? Why don’t you rebel against all the commandments? The Creator of the world, after all, uttered this definition: Be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 1:28; 9:1), and you, who oppose the Creator, should abstain from carnal affairs. And since He says: Behold, I have given you everything for food (Gen. 1:29; 9:2, 3) and for your pleasure, then you should not use any of this, you should give up everything. And when He says: An eye for an eye (Ex. 21:24), then you should not respond to an attack and blow with resistance and repulse. And when He commands the one who stole any of the four-legged animals to return it to the owner, you should not give it back (Ex. 22:1), on the contrary, give the thief something else. Likewise, if you refuse to obey this commandment: Thou shalt love the Lord (Deut. 6:5), then you would not have to love the God of the universe. And when He tells you: You shall not make any idols, either sculpted or cast (Deut. 27:15), then you would need to be consistent and worship carved ones. And are you really not wicked when, as you say, you resist the Creator and compete with dissolute women and fornicators? Foolish! Don’t you understand that through this you only exalt the power of that very God whom you consider weak? Because it is His will that is being fulfilled, and not the will of that good God whom you recognize as your God. On the contrary, do you not reveal through this the powerlessness and insignificance of your Father, as you call your God? These heretics from here and there collect a motley mixture of various prophetic sayings, unsuccessfully merge them and glue them together and take in a literal meaning what was said allegorically. It is written, they say: They resisted God and were saved (Mal. 3:15). Others add to the word “God” the epithet “shameless (ἀναιδὴς, impudens, unscrupulous) and then they present this saying with a false insertion into it as advice supposedly given to them and as a commandment to achieve salvation through opposition to the Creator. But first of all, it is not written anywhere: to “shameless” God. But unless there is a distortion in the text, then under “shameless,” O foolish ones. you mean the so-called devil either because he is a slanderer 422 against man, or because he is a deceiver of sinners, or because he is an apostate. Let us restore the true meaning of this saying. The people to whom it refers, enduring the punishment for their sins with sorrow and tears, grumbled, as the priest tells us in this saying. Scripture, that other peoples are not punished for their iniquities, while they are strictly punished for any sin. From there this word of Jeremiah: Why do the wicked prosper in their ways (Jer. 12:1)? Similar to this is the above saying of Malachi: They resisted God and were saved. The prophets, being inspired by God, were not content with simply proclaiming the truth received from above, but, conveying the murmurs and complaints of the people, they also introduced into their writings the objections with which people turned to the Lord. The above applies precisely to this kind of saying. The Apostle, referring to this kind of heretics, writes in his letter to the Romans: Some slander us and say that we teach this: Let us do evil so that good may come. On such are righteous judgment (Rom. 3:8). When reading Scripture, they change their voice and change the meaning of this passage to please their lust. They, by rearranging accents and some punctuation marks, interpret the commandments, full of wisdom and benefit, in favor of their voluptuousness. You anger God with your speeches, says Malachi; and say: “How do we anger Him? Everyone who does evil is good in the sight of the Lord. That's who He favors. And where is the justice of God” ( Mal. 2:17 )? 5. Distinguishing between two kinds of heretics and refuting those of them who proclaim that everything is permissible for everyone So as not to scrape further in this rotten soil, we will pass through most of the heretical absurdities in silence. We do not consider it necessary to go into an analysis of all the details of this kind of extravagance. And the observation of decency does not allow us to do this. In addition, these “Memoirs” of ours would have become too long from discussing all the little things. Avoiding all these inconveniences, we will divide all heresies into two classes and thus illuminate them. And indeed they either preach self-will and independence from all kinds of orders and regulations; or, speaking from the right measure, they preach abstinence based on wickedness and quarrelsomeness. Let us first talk about the first class of heretics. If it is permissible for anyone to choose any kind of life, then it is clear that it is also possible to choose an abstinent kind of life: and if every kind of life is true, as long as it is truly chosen by a person, then it is obvious that a temperate and virtuous life is all the more reliable. Because if the “master of Saturday” is given the right not to give an account to anyone for his dissolute life, then behaving decently means even more so he can not give anyone an account of his behavior. For although everything is permitted, not everything is beneficial, says the Apostle (1 Cor. 6:13; 5:23). If everything is permitted, then it is clear that it is also permitted to be moderate and abstinent. So, he who took advantage of his freedom to live a virtuous life is worthy of praise; the more worthy of respect and worship is He who gave us complete freedom and power over ourselves and allowed us to live as we want, not wanting us to be forced slaves when choosing one way of life and deviating from another. But although both have the same right to choose, both the one who prefers abstinence and the one who finds intemperance more to their liking, still the dignity and decency of both ways of life are by no means the same. The carnivore is confused in providing pleasures to his body, while the abstinent person frees his soul, the ruler of the body, from passions. We are called to freedom, says the Apostle. But who denies this? Let us only watch, says the same Apostle, that this freedom is not a reason for pleasing the flesh (Gal. 5:13). But if our wishes should not be denied anything and an inglorious life should be considered a matter of indifference, as the heretics claim, then what follows from this? It means recklessly giving in to all our wishes. And if this is so, then we can reach the last extremes of crime and corruption, following in the footsteps of our advisers. Or we can avoid fulfilling some of our wishes: and then this or that life is not an indifferent matter at all, and therefore we cannot be timid caresses of our corpse 423, being shameless slaves of the lowest and most despicable parts of the body and those, at the name of which we blush. For through the satisfaction of desires, voluptuousness is nourished and revived, just as from a lack of this type of food it withers and goes out. Is it therefore sufficient for someone overcome by bodily voluptuousness to become like the Lord or to have a concept of God? The beginning of all voluptuousness is desire, and desire is torment and anxiety arising from some lack. That is why those who recognize it as the beginning of their behavior, as they say, in addition to dishonor, experience thousands of troubles, since both in the present and in the future they incur evil upon themselves (Odis. 18, 72). So, if everything is permissible and if there was no need to fear being separated from hope for our bad deeds, then the heretics would perhaps still have some excuse to plunge into shamelessness and outrage. And since the blessed life is indicated to us in attentiveness to the Divine commandments, with a general adherence to which nothing should be interpreted incorrectly, below is blamed that, even if it were some small thing, then we should go where the Logos leads; because falling away from Him would be tantamount to irrevocably plunging into eternal evil (Odis. XII, 18); whereas following the Divine Scripture, guided by which all believers come to the Lord, means, as far as possible, becoming like God. From this it follows that (no creature can live without law and regulations and that) it is far from an indifferent matter to live one way or another, that on the contrary, one must try in every possible way to cleanse oneself from carnal passions and desires and preserve one’s soul, abiding with it in one God. For the spirit is pure, not contaminated by depravity, in truth there is a sanctuary, sanctified by the growth in it of the image of God; a person is imbued with this property of a certain Divine. And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, since God is pure (1 John 3:3). For those possessed by passions, knowledge and cognition of God is impossible, and for those who do not know God it is impossible to approach complete perfection. Ignorance of God is the reason that the ignorant does not move towards this goal; and it is precisely for this ignorance that he bears condemnation in this stagnation. For where does ignorance of God come from? From the lifestyle we lead. It cannot be, it is impossible, that a reasonable person who knows and remembers God would not be ashamed and blush before the deeds of the flesh. But it turns out differently for you; according to you, “voluptuousness is a good thing.” But how can this position be reconciled with another, that “only that which is beautiful and honest can be good”? How do you do all this? Or how can your definition of voluptuousness be reconciled with this: “God alone is beautiful; He alone is good and worthy”? It is in Christ that you are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the sinful body of the flesh, with the circumcision of Christ (Col. 2:11). So, if you have been raised with Christ, then seek the things that are above, set your mind on things above and not on earthly things, for you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God (Col. 3:1-3). And this life is not a life of voluptuousness, which is led by heretics. Mortify the members of your earthly man: voluptuousness, debauchery, indecent passions and evil desires; these are crimes that incur the wrath of God. Put aside anger, frenzy, vindictiveness, slander; drive out foul language from your mouth. Put off the old man with its desires, and put on the new man, who, after knowing the truth, is renewed in the image of Him who created him (Col. 3:5-10). The behavior of a famous person reveals the content of the commandments known to him. As are speeches, such is life 424. A tree is known by its fruits (Matthew 12:33), not by its leaves or branches. So, knowledge and remembrance of God is revealed in fruits and behavior, and not in speech and splendor. And from knowledge we do not make fruitless and empty words, but Divine science, directed toward action. And the light of knowledge, descending into the soul as a result of obedience to the Divine commandments, penetrates from within such a person and out: it makes self-knowledge possible for a person and shows him the path that he must follow to possess God (to establish the kingdom of God in himself through the subordination of his entire way of thinking and actions to the will of God). What the eye serves for the body, knowledge (gnosis, wisdom, active acquaintance with the highest principles of life) is for the soul; and let not the heretics say that freedom consists in the slavish service of voluptuousness; this would be to praise the sweetness of bile. We have been taught that the only true freedom is the one that God gives us, freeing us from voluptuousness, evil desires and other troubled states of the soul. He who says, “I know Him,” but does not keep His commandments, is a liar and there is no truth in him, says John (1 John 2:4). 6. Refutation of the second type of heretics who practice abstinence out of malice against the Creator I turn to another kind of heretics, who with their notorious abstinence insult both creation and the praiseworthy Creator, the only Almighty God. They neither marry nor approve of the birth of children, teaching that one should not place other creatures in their place in the world who would be just as unhappy and serve only as food for death. We contrast them with the following. And firstly, the word of the Apostle John: And now many antichrists have appeared. From here we know that the last time is coming. They came from our midst, but were not ours; because if they were ours, they would remain with us (1 John 2:18, 19). Then the provisions of their false teaching can be overthrown and destroyed by the following considerations. Salome, who asked: “How long will the power of death last,” the Lord answered: “As long as you women give birth” 425. Life and creation, therefore, are not anything evil or bad. In this, the Savior gives us, as if with our fingers, to touch the natural sequence of things: birth is followed by death, of course. That is why the law sets itself the goal of diverting us from all kinds of sensual pleasures and disorder. His intention, through strengthening among us decent marriages, the birth of legitimate children and a sober, moderate lifestyle, leads us from deceit before conscience and truth to righteousness and truth. The Lord came not to break the law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). Execute. But this does not mean as if the law was erroneous in some way, but that with the coming of Christ, the prophecies about Him of the law were fulfilled. And indeed He, the Logos, praised the right and holy institutions of life before those very people who, even before the law, lived in accordance with the law. Most people who do not know what abstinence is, therefore live a carnal life, and not a spiritual and rational one; and without the spirit, what is the body? Nothing more than earth and dust. And the Lord requires such spirituality from our lives that even an unclean thought is declared to be the ingratiation of a criminal inclination (Matthew 5:18). Because what? Is it really impossible to observe abstinence in marital relations and not to encroach on the separation of what God has united (Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9)? And the spoilers of marriage teach exactly this, giving these pagans a reason to dishonor and blaspheme the Christian name (James 2:7; Rom. 2::24). And since marriage, according to the judgment of these heretics, is a criminal and wicked matter, then they themselves, the fruit of marriage, are therefore vile villains, disgusting rogues and vile wicked people 426. How could it be otherwise? On the contrary, I think that the seed of the sanctified, the embryo from which they came, is also holy. For us Christians, indeed, not only our spirit, but also our morals and life and body must be sanctified. Otherwise, in what sense and for what other purpose did the Apostle say that the wife is sanctified by the husband, and the husband by the wife (1 Cor. 7:14)? Otherwise, i.e. Without this mutual sanctification of the spouses to each other, what would the Lord’s answer to those who asked Him regarding divorce mean: Should one divorce one’s wife, as Moses allowed? Because of your hardness of heart, said the Lord, Moses wrote this. Have you not read that God said to the first created man: And you two will be one flesh, so that whoever divorces his wife not for criminally seeking the criminal inclination of another man, he himself lets her go to seek such an inclination (Matthew 19:3, etc.; Mark 10:2, etc.) But after Sunday, the Lord adds, neither men will marry, nor women will marry (Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:23; Luke 20:35). For it is said about both the belly and food: Food is for the belly, and the belly is for food, but God will abolish both (1 Cor. 6:13). The Apostle here condemns those who find life in the manner of pigs and goats worthy of themselves and condemns the calm immersion in gluttony, with the voice of conscience muffled, and drowning in animal lusts. But “the resurrection in them, say the heretics, has already taken place 427; That’s why they reject marriage.” If so, then let them stop eating and drinking at the same time, for the Apostle said that in the resurrection both stomach and food will be abolished. After this, they do not have the right to eat or drink, or indulge in other carnal desires, which a believer who has achieved complete resurrection in Christ, the goal of our hopes, will not allow himself. So what am I saying? Even the most idolaters observe abstinence in food and sensual pleasures. Moreover, the kingdom of God is not food and drink, says the Apostle (Rom. 14:17). It is known that magicians who worshiped angels and demons attach great importance to their abstinence from wine, meat and the affairs of the lower animal life. And just as humility consists in meekness, and not in a careless attitude towards the body (Col. 2:23), in the same way, self-control is a spiritual virtue, declaring itself not so much externally as in the conscience and the innermost state of the spirit. There are heretics who directly call marriage illegal and teach that it is an institution of the devil. Being inflated boasters, they claim that they imitate the Lord, who remained unmarried and did not own any property on earth; and they boast that they have understood the Gospel better than all other Christians. But Scripture answers them: God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble (Prov. 3:34; James 4:6; 1 Peter 5:5). Therefore, they do not delve into the reason why the Lord remained celibate. First, His bride was the church. Then He was not an ordinary man, so that according to the flesh he needed any helper. And there was no need for Him to have children, He who lives forever and is the only begotten Son of God. But this very Lord says: What God has joined together, let not man put asunder (Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9). And again: And as it was in the days of Noah, when they married and gave in marriage and built houses and planted trees; and as it was in the days of Loma: so will the coming of the Son of Man be (Matt. 24:37; Luke 17:28). And showing that this does not apply to the pagans, He adds: But when the Son of man comes, will he find faith on earth (Lk. 18:8)? And again: Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who nurse in those days (Matthew 24:19; Mark 13:17; Luke 21:23). But this is also said allegorically. Therefore, He does not determine the time, which the Father has set in His power (Acts 1:7), thereby saying that the world has to exist from generation to generation. As for this answer of the Lord: Not everyone can comprehend this word, for there are eunuchs who were born like this from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who are castrated from people; and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven: whoever can contain, let him contain, then the heretics do not pay attention to the fact that this saying: Not everyone can accommodate this word, but to whom it is given, He pronounced it only after the prohibition of divorce, for some said to Him: If this is the duty of a husband to his wife, then it is better not to marry (Matt. 19:10, 11). Those who asked the Lord about divorce wanted to know from Him whether He allowed him to marry another if the first wife was exposed in ingratiating herself with the criminal inclinations of another man and violating fidelity to her husband and for this would be expelled from the house. They say that many of the athletes refrained from indulgence in carnal relations 428 out of a desire to achieve self-control through gymnastic exercises. These athletes include Astul the Krotonian and Krison the Gimerean. Ameybey, a cithara player 429, and after marrying a young woman, abstained from intercourse with her 430. Cyrenaic Aristotle was the only person in his time who rejected the caresses of Laisa 431. He swore to this hetaera that he would take her to his fatherland if only she would support him somewhat in one of his affairs with his opponents; and after she assisted him in this, he came up with such an intricate trick to keep his word. He ordered a most accurate portrait of this courtesan and with this portrait he left for Kyurena. Istr conveys this in his essay “On the Peculiarities of Gymnastic Competitions.” Chastity therefore does not yet constitute a virtue if it has not been inspired by the love of God 432 . Blessed Paul already speaks about those who hate marriage: In the course of time some will depart from the faith, following seductive spirits and teachings of demons, which forbid marriage and abstaining from various types of food (1 Tim. 4:1, 3). He also says: Let no one deceive you with self-willed humility and mercilessness towards the body (Col. 2:18, 23). And again the same Apostle says: Are you united to your wife? Don't look for a divorce. Are you left without a wife? Do not seek a wife (1 Cor. 7:27). And again: Each one have his own wife, so that Satan does not tempt you (1 Cor. 7:2, 5). But what? Didn’t the ancient righteous people gratefully use their share of created things? Some of them, in a decent marriage and free from immoderate lusts, gave birth to children. Elijah carried food, bread and meat, and ravens (1 Kings 17:6). The prophet Samuel treated Saul to a spoonful of what he himself had eaten (1 Samuel 9:24). And these arrogants, in their way of life and behavior, imagine themselves surpassing these righteous people. But they cannot even compare with them. So, whoever eats, do not humiliate the one who does not eat; and whoever does not eat, do not condemn the one who eats, because God has accepted him (Rom. 14:3). But the Lord also speaks about himself: John came, neither eating nor drinking; and they say: he has a demon. The Son of Man came, eating and drinking; and they say: here is a man who loves to eat and drink wine, a friend of publicans and sinners (Matt. 11:18, 19). Will these people also condemn the Apostles? Peter and Philip had children. Philip even married off his daughters 433. Paul in one of his epistles (Phil. 4:3) is not afraid to turn to his wife 434, whom he did not take everywhere with him because of haste and in order to have more freedom, which his ministry required 435. And in another message does he not say: Or we do not have the power to have a sister as a wife as a companion. Like the other Apostles (1 Cor. 9:5)? These latter - which was natural - so as not to be scattered and, through the need to return, not to be interrupted from their service, i.e. being diligent in the work of evangelizing without entertainment (1 Cor. 7:25), they took their wives with them everywhere, but not as spouses, but in the rank of sisters 436, who had the duty of preaching the Gospel to women kept in their homes; and through their medium the teaching of the Lord penetrated into the women’s quarters of the houses; and ill will could not then discredit the Apostles themselves or arouse unfair suspicions against them 437 . For from the 2nd Epistle to Timothy we know what instructions the glorious Paul gave to the deaconesses themselves. However, he directly exclaims: The Kingdom of God does not consist in food or drink, nor in abstinence from wine and meat, but in righteousness and peace and joy given by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 14:17). Which of these heretics goes everywhere covered with a ram's skin and girded with a leather belt, like Elijah (1 Kings 19:13, 19; 2 Kings 1:8; 13:14)? Which of them turns out to be dressed in a hair shirt over his naked body, and without any shoes on his feet, like Isaiah? Who wears only a linen apron like Jeremiah? Which of them, in a way of life truly worthy only of the highest sage (Gnostic), imitates John? But even living so meagerly, these blessed prophets sent only thanks to the Creator. The imaginary righteousness of Carpocrates and those who, like him, preach an obscene commune, crumble into dust from the following words of the Lord. Saying: Give to the one who asks you (Luke 6:30), He immediately adds: And do not turn away from anyone who wants to borrow from you (Matthew 5:42). By this He instills the duty of almsgiving, and does not establish a vile and dissolute commune. And how will there still be people asking, receiving, and lending in society, when there will be neither owners nor lenders in it? no creditors? What? Saying: I was hungry, and you gave me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger and you accepted Me; naked, where you clothed Me, does not the Lord add: Because you did it to one of the least of these My brothers, you did it to Me (Matt. 25:35, 36, 40)? But didn't the same laws exist in the Old Testament? He who does good to the poor lends to the Lord (Prov. 19:17). The same Solomon says: Do not refuse a benefit to someone in need (Prov. 3:27). And one more thing: Let mercy and faith not leave you (Proverbs 3:3). Poverty, on the other hand, degrades a husband, but only the hands of the diligent become rich (Proverbs 10:4). Nevertheless, regarding the methods of acquiring wealth, Scripture adds: He who does not give his money for usury is acceptable (Ps. 15:5: Ezek. 18:8). Mental health is a person's true wealth (Proverbs 13:8). Isn’t it clear from this that, in the likeness of the physical world, which is made up of opposites, heat and cold, moisture and dryness, the moral world is also made up of people, some of whom give, and others of whom receive? And saying: If you want to be perfect, then sell your property and give it to the poor, does not the Lord shame the one who boasted of fulfilling all the commandments from his youth, and this commandment, Love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 19:16; Mark 10:17; Luke 18:18), who has not yet fulfilled it? Having been instructed by the Lord how to achieve perfection, he learns to give to the poor in the spirit of mercy and love. Wealth is something beautiful, and the Lord did not forbid the pursuit of wealth; He only forbade the acquisition of wealth through unjust means and the gluttony of wealth. Wealth gathered in iniquity diminishes and disappears (Prov. 13:11) 438. There are people who scatter their wealth and thereby only increase it; and again there are others who save them and thereby only reduce them (Prov. 11:24). About the first it is written: Scattered, distributed to the poor; his righteousness is passed on from century to century (Ps. 112:9). The one who scatters wealth and through this only multiplies it is the one who, through mercy, exchanges earthly and temporal blessings for heavenly and eternal blessings. But there is a different kind of people whose hand never opens to the poor; in vain they bury their treasures in the ground, where moth and rust destroy them (Matthew 6:19). It is written about them: They collect wages, but for a wallet with holes (Hag. 1:6). This field, says the Lord in the Gospel, gave a bountiful harvest. Then the Lord introduces the rich man to those who wished to collect the fruits and dreamed of how he would build larger granaries and then say to himself: You have a lot of goods lying around for many years; eat, drink, be merry. You fool, says the Lord, this night your soul will be taken from you; what you have prepared, who will get it (Luke 12:16–20)? 7. The superiority of Christian abstinence compared to that adopted by philosophers (worldly sages) So, human continence, as it is portrayed by philosophers - I mean Hellenic philosophers - consists of opposing sensual desires to the point of fighting them and rejecting the service of them by actions. For us Christians, abstinence consists not only in renouncing oneself from desires, not only in displacing an already intruding desire from the soul, but also in preventing it from entering here; One should not only resist one’s wishes, but also refrain from them, giving dominion in the soul to another principle. The grace of God is the only means to achieve such abstinence. That is why the Lord said: Ask and it will be given to you (Matthew 7:7). This grace was also poured out on Moses: he was clothed with a body whose needs were brought to a minimum, so that for 40 days he could not experience hunger or thirst. Just as it is better to be healthy than to talk about health when you are sick, in the same way it is better to be a light than to talk about the light; Likewise, abstinence, if it flows from virtue, is better than what philosophers talk about. Indeed, where there is no light, there is darkness: in the same way, where desire nests - let it be inactive and not yet transform into any carnal act - by imagination it already hovers in a vicious environment, although still distant. As for our opinion about marriage, about food and similar things, then here, at the beginning of our discussions about these subjects, we will express our opinion about them in general. There is no need to fall under the power of passions and you should not be determined by their voice in your actions, but limit your desires to only the most necessary. We are not the wishes of the child (John 1:13), but the will. He who marries in order to have children must be abstinent, and not even have desires towards his own wife; Of course, he is obliged to love her, but in raising children he must be guided by an honest and decent desire. For we are taught not to turn care for the flesh into lusts, but to behave decently as during the day, walking in Christ, who is our sunny day; We must arrange our life wisely, so that it is a reflection of the light of Christ, the knowledge of Him, without indulging in feasting and drunkenness, nor sensuality and debauchery, nor quarrels and strife (Rom. 13:12–14). Abstinence should not be understood one-sidedly, i.e. in relation to rerum only venerearum; it must extend to all other desires with which our sensual soul, thirsting for pleasure and not content with what is necessary, gives itself. Abstinence consists in paying little attention to money, in suppressing sensuality, in establishing a sublime point of view on wealth and theatrical spectacles. It further consists in curbing the tongue, in taming dissolute desires, in giving dominance over them to reason. Already some angels, unable to restrain their passions and being overcome by desires, have not fallen from heaven to earth 439? And Valentine, in his letter to Agathopodos 440, says: “Jesus, having resisted all temptations, was self-controlled and gained divinity. He ate and drank in the way that was natural for Him, without throwing food back; He was characterized by such strength of self-control that the food in His body did not spoil, since He did not have to go through the corruption of the grave.” And so we take upon ourselves abstinence joyfully, out of love for the Lord, and also out of reverence for it, as a most worthy deed, sanctifying with it our body, this temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 3:16, 17). And it is truly wonderful to become a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 19:12); Through this you free yourself from all desires, you cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living and true God (Heb. 9:14). As for those who, out of malice against the flesh, forcibly break off marital unions and refuse ordinary food, these are ignorant and wicked people, but following the example of some pagan peoples, they practice unreasonable abstinence. So Brahmins 441 do not eat meat and do not drink wine. Some of them eat food every day like us; others only every three days, according to Alexander Polyhistor, who talks about this in his book “On the Hindus.” They disdain death and do not value life, believing in rebirth. Some of them worship Hercules and Pan. The so-called “saints” of the Hindus do not wear any clothes throughout their entire lives, busy exploring the truth, predicting the future and worshiping some kind of pyramid, under which, as they imagine, lie the bones of some god. Both the Gymnosophists and the so-called “saints” of the Hindus remain unmarried; they think that marriage relations with wives are contrary to nature and illegal; for this reason they keep their virginity. There are also women among them who also maintain chastity and are known under the name of “saints.” Both men and women from this category observe the starry sky and predict the future from the signs that they discover in the sky. 8. Interpretation of sacred passages. Scriptures cited by heretics to denigrate marriage; and above all, the defense of the words of the Apostle Paul in Rom. 6:14 from the misunderstanding of them by heretics Supporters of the doctrine of the indifference of good and bad deeds find that the sacred itself. Scripture seems to favor their sensuality. But for this they distort the true meaning of some of its passages. They especially talk a lot about this saying: Do not let sin have dominion over you, for you are not under the law, but under grace (Rom. 6:14). They refer to several other similar places in support of their wicked teaching; but I don’t consider it necessary to bring them here: I’m not a pirate, so that I could fill these “Notes” with such items, just as robbers at sea load their ships with various rubbish. Let us show in just a few short words the vanity of these heretical attempts. The glorious Apostle himself refutes the blasphemy leveled at him with the words he adds to those just cited. He says: What then? Will we sin because we are not under the law, but under grace? Let it not be (Rom. 6:15). So divinely enlightened and prophetic - intelligently, as if with one blow of his foot, he scatters their sophisms in defense of lust. Heretics do not comprehend, it seems, that we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive according to what he did while living in the body, good or bad (2 Cor. 5:10), so that whatever anyone has done through the body, he may receive it. Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; he no longer engages in sins. The ancient has passed, the old life is abandoned; behold, all things are new (2 Cor. 5:16, 17), integrity instead of lust, moderation instead of intemperance, truth instead of untruths. For what fellowship does righteousness have with iniquity? Or what does light have in common with darkness? What agreement is there between Christ and Belial? Or what is the complicity of the faithful with the infidel? What is the relationship between the church of God and idols (2 Cor. 6:14–16)? Having such promises, let us cleanse ourselves from everything that defiles the body and spirit, completing the work of sanctification in the fear of God (2 Cor. 7:1). 9. Presentation of the answer of Christ the Savior to Salome, cited by heretics in condemnation of marriage Because of their notorious, but imaginary abstinence, those who refuse to use God’s creation, in confirmation of their teaching, cite the answer of the Lord to Salome, which we mentioned earlier 442. It exists, as I think, in the Gospel of the Egyptians. They say that this saying belongs to the Savior himself. It is this: “I have come to overthrow the works of the woman,” i.e. wishes, deeds means birth and death. So what? Will they say that this order will be overthrown? But they cannot claim this. The world still exists according to the same laws. And yet the Lord did not say anything false. Indeed, He overthrew the works of lust, love of money, greed, love of glory, insane passion for women, pederasty, gluttony and carousing, luxury and extravagance, and other similar excesses. The existence of these vices is death for the soul, because through crimes (sins) we become dead (Eph. 2:5). And by woman, therefore, one must understand intemperance. The birth and death of the creature, according to once established laws, must necessarily occur even before the day of the final separation and rebirth of the elect, through which the substances that now exist mixed with the world will be brought to their natural state. Therefore, it is not surprising that Salome asks the Logos, who mentioned the end of time, the question: “How long will people die”? Scripture distinguishes a twofold substance in man; external man and soul, and again saved and not saved 443. As for sin, Scripture also calls it the death of the soul. Therefore, the Lord observes some wisdom and caution in the answer. He says: “As long as women give birth,” i.e. How long will the wish retain its intensity? Let us also listen to the Apostle what he says regarding this subject. He writes: Just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin: so also death spread to all men through this one man, since all sinned in him: and death reigned from Adam to Moses (Rom. 5:12–14). According to the natural, God-established order of things, if there is a birth, then it must necessarily be accompanied by death; and the separation of the soul from the body is a consequence of their union. But if birth occurs for education and knowledge, then separation also occurs for the purpose of rebirth. And just as woman, because of birth, is considered the cause of death, so for the same reason she should be called the vehicle of life. Therefore, having set the first example of disobedience (1 Tim. 2:14), she was called “life” (Gen. 3:20) because of the continuous series of creatures that had to come from her. A woman is equally the mother of both those who are born and those who die, the righteous and the unrighteous, depending on what each of us is working on, whether on his own justification or, on the contrary, he declares himself to be disobedient to the law. From this I conclude that the Apostle did not at all abhor the life that animates the body, for he says: But, speaking with complete freedom, Christ will still be glorified in my body, whether it be through life or through death, for for me life is Christ, and death is gain. If life in the flesh brings fruit to my work, then I don’t know what to choose; I am attracted by both: I have a desire to be resolved and to be with Christ, because this is incomparably better, but remaining in the flesh is more necessary for you (Phil. 1:20-24). Through these words, I think, the Apostle clearly showed that perfection in this life consists in love for God and that death, crushing our body, confirms us in this love; as long as we remain in this body on behalf of those in need of salvation, perfection must consist in waiting and patience, imbued with complete gratitude. So what? Why are those reckless insolent people, choosing arbitrariness as guides rather than true teaching, the foundations of which are true, why do they not add to their previous references the subsequent words of the Lord, contained in His same answer to Salome? This wife said: “It’s good that I don’t have children”; through this she expressed satisfaction with the fact that she was not a mother. The Lord answered her: “Eat all herbs except the bitter ones.” By this He tells us that abstinence and marriage are left to our choice, and neither one nor the other is necessary due to the prohibition of one or the other by the commandment; Moreover, the Savior with this word testifies that through marriage the work of creation continues. Let heretics therefore not look upon a marriage contract concluded with the approval of the Logos as some kind of crime, and let them not consider the task of raising children too difficult for themselves, the lack of which for others constitutes such a painful deprivation. And in the same way, being a father should not seem difficult to anyone on the grounds that the worries that fatherhood brings with it can supposedly divert one from deeds pleasing to God. There are people who are incapable of complacently enduring lonely life; therefore they marry, and this is a good deed; and there is nothing to blame anyone for. And each of us has the right and power to want children. But even then, I will note here that many of those who abstained from marriage, under the pretext of difficulties and worries of family life 444, fell into severe unsociability, disagreeing with the holiness of the true teaching they had learned; At the same time, the fire of love completely went out in their hearts. On the other hand, some of those united by marriage lead a sensual life in marriage and obey the law only apparently, but in reality they are like, in the words of the prophet, senseless cattle (Ps. 49:21). 10. The mysterious meaning of the words of Christ the Savior, conveyed to St. Matthew (Matthew 18:20) But who are these two or three, gathered in the name of Christ, in whose midst He dwells (Matthew 18:20)? Do not these three appear to be husband, wife and child born from this union, because the wife is mated to the husband by God himself? As for the one who, for the sake of Christian activity, would wish to remain free from all bonds and who does not dare to become a father because of his responsibilities and difficulties, let him remain celibate 445 like me, says the Apostle (1 Cor 7:7). Let's reveal the meaning of these words. If you believe the interpretation of some heretics, then God, the Creator of the human race, abides with everyone, while the Savior, the Son of another, i.e. good God, dwells with only the chosen one. But that's not true. God, through the mediation of his Son, is with those who bring into marriage prudent self-control and the fruit of marriage is generation; just as the same God dwells in exactly the same way with him who observes self-control imbued with the spirit of the Logos. They can be understood by these three that Christ speaks of: anger, desire and prudence 446, or according to another understanding: body, soul and spirit 447. But perhaps this above-mentioned triplicity means: calling, then second election, and finally the third kind of salvation, the most glorious of all, because this is restoration to the original glory; and with these saved abides the all-watching omnipotence of God, remaining one and undivided and yet descending to division. Therefore, a person who uses the natural inclinations of the soul with reasonable moderation desires what is decent and rejects what is harmful, as he is commanded to do so by the commandments. For it is said: “You will bless the one who blesses you and you will curse the one who curses you” (Gen. 12:3 or Gen. 27:29) 448. And when would someone above them, i.e. anger and wishes, he would rise up and by his very deeds would begin to prove his love for creation because of God, the Creator of everything, and would begin to live the life of a Gnostic, imitating the Savior, observing self-restraint, which did not represent anything particularly difficult for him, since he united in his person knowledge, faith and love, hence achieving unity in his judgments and becoming a truly spiritual person, never allowing even the slightest movements of thought to be determined by anger and wishes, then he could finally be considered a perfect man, similar to the Lord the Savior, deserving the title of brother to the Lord (Heb. 2:11) and such an appeal to him: “Behold His friend, and at the same time his son.” This is how two or three find themselves living together in a true Gnostic. Or maybe this unanimity of many, honored by its designation by the number trinity, the unanimity of many, among whom is the Lord, designates one church, one person and one and only race of people. When the Lord initially revealed His law, was He not, to the exclusion of all other nations, only with the Jews? And when the prophecies were heard, when He sent Jeremiah to Babylon, when He began to call the pagans through his preaching, was it not through this that He united two peoples? And by the third person among those mentioned in the above saying of the Lord, is not that new people formed from these two peoples into one new man, in whom God lives and acts in the bowels of this very church (Eph. 2:10; 2 Cor. 6:16)? The ancient law, then the prophets and finally the Gospel, are they not united in the name of Christ into a single knowledge (gnosis)? So, those who avoid marriage out of contempt for it or out of slavish service to desire, who shamelessly abuse the body as an indifferent matter, are not among those who will be saved and among whom the Lord. 11. The commandment of the Old Testament law and Christ the Lord, prohibiting wishes These are the true principles of sound doctrine. Let us now cite passages of Scripture that refute the sophisms of heretics and briefly outline the forms in which moderation is manifested, consistent with the spirit of the Logos, or reason. In the sacred There are passages in Scripture that refute any heresy in particular. A believer who understands the Holy. books, on occasion, can use them as a tool to overthrow those innovations, which, compared with the Divine commandments, represent nothing more than false thinking. Returning to ancient things, we hear the following decree of the law: You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife (Ex. 20:17). This was proclaimed in the law even before Christ, in the new covenant, on His own behalf, without the mediation of another person, proclaimed the commandment that has a connection with this: Have you heard what the law says? Don't commit adultery. But I tell you, do not covet (Matthew 5:27, 28). That the law commands a husband to behave moderately in marriage and solely for the purpose of procreating children 449, this can clearly be concluded from its prohibition for a man who has captivated a famous woman to immediately enter into extramarital affairs with her 450 (Deut. 21:11–13). Once she has inspired the wish in him, he must allow her to lament for 30 days after her braid falls under the scissors. If the desire does not go away even after this mourning, then he can have children from her; the impulses that took possession of him, experienced over a certain period of time, will be counted as reasonable wishes. You are not able to name me a single Old Testament person, here is the Scripture in your hands, who would get close to a pregnant woman, but you will find everywhere that marital relations were restored only after the permission of the spouse and with the cessation of feeding the child. So what am I saying? Moses' father, faithful to this decree, gives birth to Moses after Aaron only after a period of three years. Paying attention to the tribe of Levi, I find that it entered the promised land in fewer numbers than other tribes, because it strictly preserved this law of nature, commanded to us and by God. Indeed, the population is increasing slowly among those tribes where men have intercourse with women only in legal marriage and where new carnal intimacy occurs not only after the end of pregnancy, but after the end of feeding the child. And this is why Moses, elevating the Jews from one level of abstinence to another, makes a very reasonable demand of them that they allow themselves to listen to the word of God only after a preliminary three-day abstinence from marital relations (Ex. 19:20). So, we are the church of the living God, just as the prophet said that “I will dwell in them and walk, and I will be their God, and they will be my people” (Lev. 26:12). My people... if only we, both personally and along with the entire church, harmonize our lives with the commandments. Therefore, come out from among them and separate yourself, says the Lord, and do not touch the unclean, and I will receive you (Isa. 52:11) and I will be a Father to you, and you will be My sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty (Jer. 3:19; Hos. 1:11; 2 Cor. 6:16–18). What does the Apostle make clear by citing these prophetic sayings? Is it to separate yourself from married people? Not at all. Through this, He orders us to break ties with the pagans who spend their lives in amorous schemes, to break relations with the heretics we named above, because they stain themselves with shameful deeds and wickedness. From there it happens that the same Paul, indirectly rebelling against such false teachings, proclaims the following: Having therefore these promises, beloved, let us cleanse our hearts from everything that defiles both body and spirit, working out the work of our sanctification in the fear of God (2 Cor. 7:1). For I love you for God’s sake with a zealous love, ever since I betrothed you to the only husband, who is Christ, so that in you I might present to Him a pure virgin (2 Cor. 11:2). The Church really cannot be in union with another spouse, because she already has a Groom. But each of us is free to enter into a legal marriage with the woman he has chosen, at least for the first marriage 451. But I am afraid that, just as the serpent deceived Eve with his wickedness, so your minds might be damaged in the same way and someone would deviate from Christian simplicity (2 Cor. 11:3), says the Apostle with deep piety and in the form of teaching. Let us also listen to the amazing Peter: I ask you, my beloved, who are strangers and strangers in this world, to refrain from carnal desires that attack the soul. Live holy among the pagans, for the will of God is such that by living a virtuous life you should shut the mouths of the foolish and not allow them to slander you. You are free not to use freedom as a curtain to cover up bad deeds, but to act as servants of God (1 Peter 2:11, 12, 15, 16). Paul writes something similar in his letter to the Romans: Since we have quickly died to sin, how can we still live in sins? Our old man was crucified into Christ so that the body of sin would be abolished in us, etc. even to the point of saying: much more do not give over your members to sin, making them instruments of unrighteousness (Rom. 6:2, 6, 13). Having come to this, I cannot speak further without paying attention to the fact that the Apostle preaches about one God, revealed in the law and in the prophets and in the Gospel. Because these words: Do not covet, which are in the Gospel, Paul in his letter to the Romans assimilates to the law; therefore, he knows well that the God who spoke through the law and the prophets is the same God who is proclaimed in the Gospel, and is one and the same Father. Paul actually says: What shall we say? Is it really sin from the law? No way. On the contrary, I came to know sin in no other way than through the law. I would not understand desire if the law did not say: Thou shalt not covet (Ex. 20:16, 17; Rom. 7:7). If our dissident opponents imagine that Paul said these words: I know what is in me, i.e. in my flesh, there is nothing good (Rom. 7:18) directed against the Creator, then let them read his words preceding and following. Earlier the Apostle said: Sin living in me does this; After this, it was completely natural to say: nothing good dwells in my flesh (Rom. 7:17). Subsequently, he adds: If I do what I do not want, then it is no longer I who do it, but the sin living in me, about which the Apostle says that it opposes the law of God and the law of my mind and makes me a captive of the law of sin, which is in my members. Unhappy man I am! Who will free me from this body of death (Rom. 7:20, 23, 24)? And further, - for the Apostle does not tire of helping us in every possible way - he does not hesitate to add in the form of a conclusion: The law of the Spirit frees me from the law of sin and death, because God, through his Son, condemned sin in the flesh, so that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled on us, who do not live according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit (Rom. 8:2-4). Explaining what was said by the way, he also exclaims: The body died to sin, which means that the body is not a church, but a grave for the soul! 452. For since it was dedicated to God, the Spirit of Him who raised Christ, adds Paul, lives in us and gives life to our dead bodies through His Spirit who lives in us (Rom. 8:10, 11). Then once again condemning carnivores, the Apostle says: Love for carnal things is death. Because those who spend their lives in carnal pleasures love and do carnal deeds, and love for carnal deeds is enmity against God, because such people do not obey the law of God. And this expression, those who are in the flesh, must be understood not in the same way as some heretics understand that these cannot please God, but in accordance with our explanation. Distinguishing these sensual people from others, the Apostle says, addressing the church: But you do not live according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit, if only the Spirit of God dwells in you. If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the spirit is alive because of righteousness. So, brethren, we are not debtors to the flesh to live carnally. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; and if you mortify the passions of the flesh with your spirit, you will live; for as many as are led by the Spirit of God are children of God. Then, indirectly condemning the imaginary nobility and this supposedly royal independence, so shamelessly proclaimed by people boasting of their depravity, the Apostle adds: You did not receive the spirit of slavery to live in fear, but the spirit of adoption, by which we cry: Father, Father (Rom. 8:5-15). Those. we received Him at that end, so that we might know Him to whom we send our prayers, the true Father, the only Father of creation, the One who educates us for salvation and truly punishes us like a Father, threatening us with fear. 12. Interpretation of the words of the Apostle Paul from 1 Cor. 7:5, 39, 40 and other parallel holy places. Scriptures And that by mutual consent, for a certain time, spouses practice prayer (1 Cor. 7:5), then this is the teaching of abstinence, for the Apostle adds the following words: by mutual consent, so that no one attempts to break the bonds of marriage; for a while, so that the husband, bound by forced abstinence, does not fall into sin and so that, by abstaining from relations with his wife, he is not carried away by his inclination towards another woman. This is why Paul writes elsewhere: If anyone considers it unseemly for his maiden to remain so when she is of mature age, he should give her in marriage (1 Cor. 7:36). But as soon as someone has decided to either remain a virgin or be united in marriage, he must remain unshakable in his once made decision and never deviate for the worse. Because whoever, through purity and completeness of abstinence consistent with the spirit of the Logos, is able to deepen and elevate the integrity of his life in the circle he has chosen, then such a life receives all the more dignity before the Lord. If someone, because of the desire for higher glory, were to leave his chosen line of life, then how could he still have hope for achieving perfection after this? No, both celibacy and marriage present a person with their own special requirements and special responsibilities, which are equivalent in the eyes of the Lord. Thus, in marriage, care for the wife and children and their maintenance are respected. Already the ordinary duties of a marriage make a completely valiant spouse into a family of Providence, since he has to be constantly concerned about the good of the family and try to satisfy all its needs. That is why the Apostle demands that people be appointed bishops who, through the management of the family, are prepared to take care of the whole church (1 Tim. 3:4, 5) 453. So, let everyone be busy fulfilling the duties that lie upon him in the rank that he held when he was called (that is, when he converted to Christianity), so that he may be free in Christ and receive a reward corresponding to his service (1 Cor. 7:24, 22). And in another place, discussing the law, the Apostle allegorically says the following: A married woman, while her husband lives, is bound to him by law, etc. (Rom. 7:2). He also says: The wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives, and if the husband dies, the wife is free to marry whomever she wants, as long as it is not against the Lord. But she will be happier if she remains a widow, as I advise (1 Cor. 7:39, 40). We have cited two sayings of the Apostle, with which we must connect the allegorical meaning. Let's delve into it. In the first of the passages cited, the Apostle says: You died to the law; law, and not marriage, as our opponents understand; to be the bride and church of the Other who rose from the dead (Rom. 7:4). This bride, i.e. the church must be clean. This means that she must close her heart to all ideas that do not agree with the true teaching she contains; - to block your hearing from everything that comes at you from the outside, i.e. from all pre-occupied and exclusive opinions and teachings that bring discord into society and incite us to leave our only Spouse, Almighty God, for an unholy relationship with someone else. Let us be vigilant so that, just as the serpent deceived Eve, although her name and “life” meant 454, so we, deceptively lured into the traps of heresy, do not run into the danger of breaking the commandments. In the second of the above passages the Apostle prescribes monogamy. One should not, however, think, as some have insisted, that the union of a wife with her husband is equivalent to the union of the flesh with death: not at all. The Apostle here rebels against the teaching of some wicked people who dared to attribute the institution of marriage to a demon, which is why the name of its real Founder was in danger of being slandered. I mean the Syrian Tatian, who boldly took upon himself the courage to proclaim such a teaching. In his book “On Perfection According to the Savior” he writes: “In 1 Cor. 7:5 The Apostle connects abstinence with prayer. But through communication with a seductress, all ties with God are severed. The wise permission of the Apostle is therefore equivalent to a strict invitation to abstinence. For by giving permission to serve Satan and intemperance for a certain time, the Apostle says that to use this permission would be to serve two masters” (Matt. 6:24): to God through consent (that is, to abstain for exercise in prayer), and not to abstinence, fornicationi, and to the devil through separation from God (when returning to cohabitation). This, according to Tatian’s explanation, is the meaning of the words of the Apostle 455. But proving what is there by what is not, instead of truth, he rewards us with only sophisms. And we agree that intemperance and red tape are the obsession of Satan; and yet there is no doubt that mutual agreement on abstinence, which arises from time to time between spouses in a completely decent marriage, can lead them to prayer; and again it is just as natural that, by virtue of the same mutual consent, they should again be brought together by connections decent for the generation of children. Scripture calls the time of conception and birth of children knowledge. Thus we read: Now Adam knew Eve his wife; and when she was conceived she gave birth to a son and gave him a name: Seth, saying: God has raised up for me another son instead of Abel (Gen. 4:25). It now becomes clear against whom the wicked are rebelling, considering decent carnal relations an abomination and attributing the work of generation to the demon. Speaking about God not simply, but by adding a member to this name, Moses makes it clear that he calls the Almighty by this name. By adding these words: and then be together again, so that Satan does not tempt you with your intemperance (1 Cor. 7:5) The Apostle has one goal: to purge from the hearts of the faithful every desire for an outside relationship. Because this temporary abstinence from each other by mutual consent does not at all overthrow the marriage relationship and does not impose some kind of stain on it, as if the previously existing mutual attraction of the spouses to each other was some kind of shameful phenomenon, no; With the concept of consent, the Apostle again brings the spouses together, although not for the purpose of having them indulge in intemperance, fornication and demonic deeds, for he still warns the spouses against intemperance, fornication and the temptation of the devil. Tatian also distinguishes the old man from the new (2 Cor. 5:17), but in a different sense than we do. We agree with him when we hear that by the old man we must understand the law of Moses, and by the new man the Gospel. But we disagree with him when he completely destroys the meaning of the Old Testament, since it comes from another God. According to our understanding, the God-man, although he renews the ancient, still does not allow polygamy, for God only allowed it when the spread and multiplication of people was necessary: ​​then it was necessarily required by God’s intentions. Instead, the Lord introduces monogamy, thereby preserving marriage for the continuation of the family and for caring for the house, into which a woman enters as an assistant to her husband, although the Apostle, out of condescension, in order to prevent kindling and falling into intemperance, allows for a second marriage for some. However, this husband, who enters into a second marriage and does not sin against Scripture, since the law does not prohibit him from doing so, can no longer achieve in life the highest perfection offered by the Gospel. He can gain glory in heaven only when he remains with himself and keeps pure those bonds that death broke, and accepts widowhood with determination and gratitude, devoting all the abilities of a person to the service of the Lord (1 Cor. 7:35), Divine conduct by the mouth of the Lord does not command for the future that the spouse, rising from the marriage bed, fulfill the usual ancient ordinance of washing (Lev. 15:18). The Lord does not keep believers from having children. Through a single baptism, He purifies the carnal relations of His servants for the entire duration of their lives, reducing the entire multiplicity of ancient ablutions commanded by Moses to one and only immersion in the waters of baptism. The Old Testament law, by carnal birth symbolically denoting our future rebirth, assimilated the power of baptism of the productive capacity of the human seed, as if to testify that it does not abhor the process of human birth. Man is truly all contained in the original embryo. The origin of man is the ejaculation of semen. So this cause is not the quantity of carnal communications, but the reception of the fertilizing seed by the laboratory of nature (matrice), where the seed is condensed in the embryo. Therefore, I ask Tatiana: How can marriage be considered an institution that is only ancient and Old Testament, since according to the institution of the Lord there should be a different kind of marriage? How can the marriage of Moses and the marriage of Christ be different from one another, when in both the Old Testament law and the new God is the same? Man has no right to separate what God has joined together (Matt. 19:6). Moreover, it was natural for the Son to support the Father’s institution. If both the law and the Gospel come from the same Lawgiver, then they do not contradict one another. The law remains vital by being spiritual (Rom. 7:14) and comprehended by being a true sage. We died to the law in the body of Christ in order to belong to another, who was raised from the dead and whose coming was predicted by the law, so that we might bear fruit to God (Rom. 7:4). Therefore the law is holy and the commandments holy and just and good (Rom. 7:12). We died to the law, i.e. for sin, which is exposed by the law, which is not generated by the law, but is only illuminated (Rom. 7:7, 13) by the law through the commandment of what one should do 456 and through the prohibition of what one should not do - through the exposure of any given sin, so that it appears as an indignation against the law. You call marriage established by law a sin. After this, I don’t know how you can still boast of knowing God when you call Divine institution that way. If the law is holy, then marriage is holy. The Apostle even interprets this mystery about the mysterious union of Christ with the church (Eph. 5:32). Just as that which is born of the flesh is flesh, so that which is born of the Spirit is spirit (John 3:6) according to the duality of birth: now carnal, now through teaching. Consequently, spouses who adhere to the Lord’s teaching and through confession of the word of God are betrothed to God in soul, are holy children (1 Cor. 7:14), pleasing to God and their marriage is honorable. There is nothing in common between marriage and fornication: Satan is far from God. This is why you yourselves also died to the law through the body of Christ, in order to belong to Another, who rose from the dead (Rom. 7:4). But in this case, one condition must be observed, namely obedience, because when we follow the truth and the law (Gal. 2:14), we obey the same Lord, who speaks to us from both covenants. The Holy Spirit directly convicts these detractors of marriage in their lies: Subsequently, some will depart from the faith, listening to seductive spirits and teachings of demons through the hypocrisy of false talkers, hardened in their conscience, forbidding marriage and the eating of meat, which God created to be eaten with thanksgiving from the believer and from those who know the truth. Everything created by God is good and there is no need to deny anything that can be used with thanksgiving, because everything is sanctified by the word of God and prayer (1 Tim. 4:1-5). So, there is no need at all to prohibit marriages and the consumption of meat and wine, for it is written: It is good not to eat meat nor drink wine, if anyone is tempted by this (Rom. 14:21). And: it is good to remain as I am (1 Cor. 7:8). But in order to remain grateful to God (Rom. 14:19) both the one who maintains continence and the one who does not preserve it, use the right of marriage moderately; May both of them live in the spirit of the Logos. In a word, all the epistles of the Apostle, in which in all of them he teaches us moderation and abstinence, contain many commandments regarding marriage, having children and managing a family. But nowhere do I find that a marriage union, honest and decent, was forbidden by the Apostle. Those who recognize the harmony that prevails between the Old Testament law and the Gospel equally approve of the one who, giving thanks to God, observes moderation in marriage, and the one who, by the will of God, imposes abstinence on himself and lives in purity; Both are called if they remain faithful to the once chosen lot and keep themselves pure and impeccable in it. And the land of Jacob was glorious above all lands (Zeph. 3:19), says the prophet, himself representing the glorious sanctuary of the Spirit who inspired him with this word 457. If someone slanderes birth, saying that children are born only for gradual destruction and final death, then in this case only through forced interpretation can one reach the idea that the Savior meant birth when he said: Do not lay up for yourselves treasure on earth, where moth and rust destroy (Matt. 6:19). Tatian is not ashamed to connect the same meaning with the words of the prophet: You will all wear out like clothing, and moth will drench you (Isa. 50:9). It goes without saying that we will not contradict Scripture in that our bodies are perishable and gradually become decrepit. But it may very well be that the prophet is directing this threat to the sinners with whom he spoke. As for the Lord, He spoke his word not to condemn the birth of children, but with the intention of inducing mercy and charity to those who are only busy accumulating wealth and do not want to help the poor. Seek, He said, not for food that perishes, but for food that endures to eternal life (John 6:27). Detractors of marriage also cite this word of Christ about the resurrection of the dead as their justification: The sons of this age neither marry nor are given in marriage (Luke 20:35). But one should remember the nature of the question and the character of those asking, and then it will be revealed that the Lord was far from rejecting marriage, on the contrary, with his answer he admonished those who asked Him about the state after the resurrection, about which they had such crude hopes. These words: the sons of this age (Luke 20:34) were not spoken by Christ about the sons of another age (that is, those who will live outside of marriage), but He spoke them, as if saying: “Those who were born in this present age, since by their very birth they are sons of it, they themselves give birth and are born; because no one can stand on the threshold of this life without entering it by birth. But the ability to be reborn again for such people, as soon as the thread of their existence is severed, as the perishable is denied.” We have only one and only Father in heaven, who through creation is the Father of all things in general. Do not call anyone your father on earth, says the Lord (Matthew 23:9). With this He said: “Do not imagine that your carnal father is the real author of your existence; he is only an aid, or better yet, an instrument of your birth.” So, the Lord wanted to say with his above word that upon turning to Him, we must place ourselves in the relationship of children with God (Matthew 18:3), upon rebirth in the waters of baptism, in this new creation in creation, recognizing our true Father. But the Apostle says: The married man is not concerned about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord, but the married man is concerned about the things of the world, how to please his wife (1 Cor. 7:32, 33). So what? The one who cares about his wife, in accordance with God’s institution, cannot give thanks for this to God? Is it not possible for a married man and his wife to be engaged in the affairs of the family and the Lord at the same time? Quite possible. Just as an unmarried woman can be concerned with the affairs of the Lord, in order to be holy both in body and in spirit (1 Cor. 7:34), so a married woman can be concerned in the Lord with the affairs of her husband and the Lord, in order to be holy in both body and spirit. They are both holy in the Lord. one as a wife, the other as a maiden. For the sake of shaming and taming those who (having separated from one woman) are inclined to a second marriage, the Apostle exclaims especially loudly: Every sin is committed outside the body, but the fornicator sins against his own body (1 Cor. 6:18). For heretics to continue to prove after this that marriage is fornication, this, I repeat, means slandering the law and the Lord. Marriage is not fornication, but fornication is. Just as the thirst for wealth can be called fornication, because it is the enemy of reasonable moderation; and just as idolatry consists in dividing the Divine unity into many gods, so the transition from one marriage to several is fornication. We have already seen that the Apostle distinguishes three types of fornication and adultery. The prophet also hints at them in the following words: You are sold to your sins (Isa. 50:1). And one more thing: You were defiled in a foreign land, i.e. the prophet declares criminal sexual relations with any other woman except the one given to a person in marriage for the purpose of having children from her. Hence the word of the Apostle: I desire that young widows marry, bear children, rule the house and not give their enemies any occasion for slander, for there are some who have turned aside after Satan (1 Tim. 5:14, 15). And fornication is even better defined through the word of the Apostle, who treats especially favorably the one who is the husband of only one wife (1 Tim. 2:2. 12), whether this be an elder, a deacon or a layman, as long as he uses the marriage relationship decently 458: he is sanctified by the children he brings into the world (1 Tim. 2:15). When the Lord calls the Jews an evil and adulterous generation (Matt. 12:39), then through this He teaches us that the Jews, instead of understanding the law as he himself wants to be understood, followed the traditions of the elders and the commandments of men (Matt. 15:2, 9; Mark 7:5, 7), thereby committing adultery with a different law; and thus He God was not the husband and guardian of their virginity towards them. Or maybe the Lord, when he said this, also meant their enslavement to unclean and rational desires, because of the service of which, from slavery to sin, they fell into captivity to alien peoples. Jewish law, far from women's communism, actually prohibits adultery. And when the Savior said: I have drunk my wife, and therefore I cannot come (Luke 14:20) to the Divine feast, then this word of His serves as a good example for condemning those who, through pleasures, deviate from keeping the commandments. So, if truth is on the side of our opponents, then neither those righteous who lived before the coming of the Lord, nor those who lived in married life after it, nor the Apostles themselves will be saved. And if they also cited this word of the prophet in their justification: I am weary among My enemies (Ps. 6:8), then we answer them that these enemies are sins. Yes, there is one sin in marriage, and this is not itself, but fornication. Otherwise, i.e. if this very marriage is fornication, then let the birth be called sin and the culprit of the birth. 13. Reply to Julius Cassian and a judgment about one passage that this heretic quoted from the apocryphal gospel These same arguments in favor of his heresy are also given by Julius Cassian, the founder of the Docetes sect. In his book entitled “On abstinence or on chastity,” he literally writes the following: “Whatever you tell me about the reasons for the difference in the sexual parts, as if the husband is built one way, and the woman differently, for the purpose of one to fertilize, and the other to give birth, and that their carnal relations supposedly come from God, this will not be true. If the institution of marriage really came from God, which we strive for, then the Lord would not please the eunuchs; and the prophet would not have said that they are not a barren tree (Isa. 56:3), metaphorically calling a tree a man whom the will has made a eunuch (detached) from all carnal thought.” The defender of this wicked teaching, Cassian, also adds: “Who would not then have the right to condemn the Savior for the fact that He transformed our being and freed us from error and deception and the possession of parts that unite and bring together both sexes? In this, Tatian, who graduated from Valentin’s school, agrees with Cassian. The heretic continues: “Salome asked the Lord: “When will the time come when it will be possible to understand the mysteries about which she is now asking Him?” “When you despise the garments of modesty,” Christ answers, when both sexes, i.e. both male and female will be one and when there is neither male nor female 459. First of all, the four Gospels handed down to us do not contain this passage; It is also not in the Gospel of the Egyptians. Then, for me, the ignorance of Cassian is clear, not knowing that ϑυμός means precisely male lust, ἐπιϑυμία female desire, which, when translated into actions, entail repentance and shame. So, one should not flatter either anger or desire, which, being strengthened by the habits of bad education, cover and darken the light of reason with thick darkness. And when we are freed from this darkness and, under the influence of repentance, we are ashamed of our sins, when we concentrate our soul and spirit and gather at one point, obeying the Logos: then, according to the word of the Apostle, there is neither male nor female in us (Gal. 3:28). And Cassian says: “The soul, freed from the carnal form by which the sexes are distinguished, gathers into a state of unity 460 and there is neither male nor female.” This (allegedly) noble Cassian here comes too close to the opinion of Plato, asserting that the soul, divine in its beginning, but pampered by wishes, descends down to earth for birth and death 461. 14. Explanation of the words of the Apostle from 2 Cor. 11:3 and Eph. 4:24 This heresiarch, through a forced interpretation of the words of the Apostle, imposes on him the idea of ​​generation as a consequence of the primitive fall. The passage from the Apostle, interpreted by the heretic in this perverse sense, is as follows: But I am afraid, lest, just as the serpent deceived Eve with cunning, so your minds may be corrupted, deviating from the simplicity in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3). But when it is also testified about the Lord that He came to the lost (Matt. 18:11, 12), then of course this state of seduction will be more correct. from the straight and proper path, it is not about the eruption of souls from the heavenly dwelling and their expulsion into this vale of birth. And the education of man was, after all, the same work of the same Almighty, as was the creation of everything in general. And it was unnatural for God to ever want to cast out the human soul from a state of bliss to a lower state. So, we should understand that the Savior’s descent to the lost is about His descent to us, who have strayed from the right path with our feelings and thoughts; it is the Lord who has come to us. And the image of our feelings and thoughts was corrupted through our disobedience to the commandments, for we greedily devoted ourselves to the satisfaction of our desires. The first-created man may somehow have fallen because, without waiting for the proper time, he treacherously wished to enjoy the pleasures of marriage ahead of time. And since anyone who looks at a woman with desire has already committed adultery with her (Matt. 5:28); he sins because he does not wait for the time appointed by the Divine will: then the Lord, who spoke this, He himself, at the beginning of the world, condemned the premature desire of primitive man. But the Apostle, turning to us with an invitation to put on the new man created in the image of God (Eph. 4:24), recognizes us as the will of the Almighty we were created. With the word “old man,” he does not mean either birth or rebirth, but by it he means both life, both of which we lived in disobedience to God and which was already distinguished by obedience to Him. By leather girdles (Gen. 3:21) Cassian means the clothing of us with bodies. But we will deal with this error of his, as well as with those who hold the same opinions as him, later, when, in accordance with the outlined plan, we begin to present the doctrine of the origin of man: according to our plan, this doctrine should precede the refutation of these heretics. “Those who are occupied with earthly things,” says Cassian, give birth and are themselves born, but we already live in heaven (Phil. 3:20); This is where we listen to the words of the Savior.” This is what we agree with; this is said with feeling; these words contain a reminder to us of our responsibilities; this is great. Being strangers to this world and strangers in it, we must live here as strangers and strangers (Heb. 11:13; 1 Peter 2:11); being married as if they were celibate (1 Cor. 7:29–31); owning property as if they were poor; giving birth to children as creatures destined to become the property of death; We must prepare to leave everything that belongs to us; disposed, if it turned out to be necessary, to live without wives; using all created things with all thanksgiving (1 Tim. 4:3, 4) 462, and not to satisfy immeasurable desires; our souls being turned to our high purpose. 15. Explanation of passages: 1 Cor. 7:1; OK. 14:26; Is. 56:2, 3 And then, saying: It is good for a man not to touch a woman, but to avoid fornication, each one should have his own wife. The Apostle, as if in explanation, adds the following words: so that Satan does not tempt you (1 Cor. 7:1, 2, 5). Because does the Apostle address these words to those who use marriage rights in moderation and for the sole purpose of having children: by your intemperance? No, but he says this to those who, from having children in marriage, want to remain free. The apostle is afraid that the demon of fornication, with his excessive servility, will arouse waves of desire in the believers and through this plunge them into incongruous sensuality. Because this demon, being an envious and stubborn opponent of those who live righteously, can make attempts to deceitfully draw them into the ranks of his followers and, through various tricks, arrange for them, in the midst of abstinence, accompanied by so much labor, to fall. The Apostle therefore had every reason to say: It is better to marry than to become inflamed (1 Cor. 7:9); Let the husband show due favor to his wife, and the wife to her husband, and let them not turn away from each other (1 Cor. 7:3, 5); By the birth of man they assist Divine creativity. But whoever does not hate, they say, father or mother or wife or children cannot be My disciple (Luke 14:26). And yet the Lord does not at all command us to become imbued with hatred of our own family. Doesn’t He also say this: Honor your father and mother, that it may be good for you (Ex. 20:12)? The Lord wants to tell us in his own words only this: “Do not be carried away by unreasonable wishes and avoid following social customs, for a family consists of relatives, and cities are made of families” 463. In the same way, Paul says about those living in marriage: He who is married cares for the things of the world (1 Cor. 7:33). And in another place the Lord says: “He who is married, do not leave his wife, and he who is not married, do not marry” (Compare Matthew 19:12; 1 Cor. 7:8, 10, 11). This means: you who have vowed not to marry for the sake of chastity, remain celibate. The Lord himself, through the mouth of the prophet Isaiah, gives similar promises to both: Let not the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. This is what the Lord says to the eunuchs: If you will keep My Sabbaths and speak all that I command, then I will give you a better place than sons and daughters (Isa. 56:3 - 5). For purity alone does not justify a eunuch; and observing the Sabbaths is not enough; To justify him, his fulfillment of the commandments is also required. To the married he adds: My chosen ones will not labor in vain and bear children on the mountain 464, for they will be blessed seed from the Lord (Isa. 65:23). For a person who gave birth to and instructed children in the spirit of the Logos and raised them in the Lord, as well as spiritually giving birth to children by the word and the communication of the true teaching to them, is promised a certain reward, like a chosen seed. According to some, the curse should mean the very birth of children. Crazy, they do not understand that this anathema is addressed to them precisely by Scripture. Indeed, the true chosen ones of God do not invent false teachings, nor do they give birth to cursed children, as is the case with heretics. So, the word eunuch in the mouth of the Lord does not mean either one who is forcibly mutilated with iron, or one who remains celibate, but it denotes a barren spirit, which is not able to give birth to the teachings of the true. Before he was a dry tree; Having become obedient to the Logos and, after putting aside sins, beginning to observe the Sabbath and fulfill the commandments, he becomes more honorable than those who limited themselves to only listening to the teachings of the Logos, without adding to this the righteousness of life. Children, I will not be with you for long, says the Teacher (John 13:33). That is why Paul, in his letter to the Galatians, says in turn: My children, because of whom I am again in birth pangs, until Christ is formed in you (Gal. 4:19). Then in his letter to the Corinthians he writes: Though you had ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you have few fathers: for by the gospel in Christ Jesus I have begotten you (1 Cor. 4:15). Therefore a eunuch will not enter the church of God (Deut. 23:1), i.e. one who is deprived of the ability of fertility and does not bear fruit either in words or in deeds. Those who became eunuchs, i.e. Those who have renounced all sin for the sake of the kingdom of heaven are blessed, abstaining from all worldly things. 16. Explanation of sacred places. Scriptures: Jer. 20:14; Job. 14:3; Ps. 50:5; 1 Cor. 9:27 Cursed be the day on which I was born, and let it not be blessed, cried Jeremiah (Jer. 20:14). The Prophet does not unconditionally curse the birth here, but expresses indignation at the sins and disobedience of the people, the shame of which he cannot bear. Therefore, he adds: Why was I born, to see labors and sorrows and so that my days would disappear in disgrace (Jer. 20:18)? During the time of Jeremiah, all those who preached the truth, because they incited their listeners to disobedience, were immediately arrested, tried and punished. Why was I born, exclaims the prophet Ezra, and my mother’s womb did not become a grave for me, so that I would not be a witness of the oppression of Jacob and the exhaustion of the race of Israel (3 Ezra 5:35)? No one was born clean from an unclean source, says Job, even if his life lasted one day (Job 14:4, 5) 465. Let them tell us: where is the child who, immediately by birth, would already be able to sin? And how, having done nothing, can it be subject to the curse of Adam? Therefore, it remains for our opponents, as it turns out, to declare evil not only the birth of a body, but the existence of the soul itself, because of which the body exists. And when David exclaims: I was conceived in sins and my mother gave birth to me in iniquities (Ps. 50:7), then by mother he means Eve. She really was the mother of the living, and if the prophet was conceived in sins, and at the moment of birth was not a sinner, then he is therefore not a sin. As proof of the truth that everyone who passes from sin to faith is freed from the bonds of sin, just as a child comes into the world tearing his mother’s womb, one can cite the following words of one of the twelve prophets: Will I give my firstborn for my transgression, and the fruit of my womb for the sin of my soul (Mic. 6:7)? The prophet does not accuse the Creator, who said: Be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 1:28), but he brands with the name of wickedness the first desires that appear in us for the first time after our carnal birth, because of which we find ourselves ignorant of God. If birth, considered from this point of view, is evil, then at the same time it is equally good, because through it we know the truth about God. Be vigilant as you should and beware of sins, for some of you do not know God (1 Cor. 15:34). It is clear that these are sinners. Because our struggle is not only with flesh and blood, but also with spirits (Eph. 6:12). The world rulers of the darkness of this age are very powerful in arranging temptations for us; This is why we are promised forgiveness (1 Cor. 7:6). Therefore, Paul says: And this body of mine I humble and bring into subjection (1 Cor. 9:27), because everyone who competes abstains from everything (1 Cor. 9:25), i.e. observes strict abstinence and moderation in everything; This is not unconditional abstinence from everything, but means that he uses in moderation only what, in his opinion, is useful. And yet what are they trying to achieve? They fight to receive a perishable wreath, but we are incorruptible (1 Cor. 9:25), winning the fight, but receiving the wreath covered with sweat and dust. In this noble competition, some give the palm for continence not to the girl, but prefer the widow to her, since she generously rejects the voluptuousness that was previously known to her 466 . 17. Proving that marriage and the birth of children are evil is tantamount to defamation of the entire creation of God and the economy of the gospel You say that birth is evil. Be consistent. Affirm that the Lord, having been born, went through the obscenity of evil; that the Virgin, who gave birth to Him, passed through the same vale of evil. Alas, what a flood of evil! But by encroaching on birth, these detractors of it are indignant against the will of God and hurl slander at the entire mystery of creation. Hence Cassian’s assurance 467 that the body of Christ is a kind of emptiness; hence the teaching of Marcion and Valentinus that our bodies are organisms with properties exclusively of animals. Therefore, they say, as soon as a person gives himself over to the works of the flesh, he becomes like foolish beasts (Ps. 49:13, 21). And we agree with that. He who blindly surrenders to his insane passion and encroaches on someone else’s bed, truly descends to the level of an animal. They have become fattened horses, says Scripture, which run wild and neigh at the mares; each of them laughs at his neighbor's wife (Jer. 5:8) To assert that the serpent, familiar with the morals and customs of animals, managed to use them against man, for he managed to convince Adam to copulate with Eve, and that without the participation of the serpent our first parents would never have known this kind of natural functions, as some claim, this means again blaspheming the creation (and the Creator) for the fact that He created man weaker than animals, the crude examples of which were followed by the first created people. However, I can agree with you that nature attracted our first parents to the work of generation; seduced by the spell of the enemy, carried away by the fervor of youth, they followed their carnal instincts more than they should have. What happened? The curse that God pronounced on them was just because they did not wait for God’s command. And yet birth is holy, because by birth the existence of the world is maintained; it determines the essence of things with their natural properties; through it - peoples and kingdoms of nature with genera and species in them, through it Angels; through him the Powers; through him souls; through him the commandments; through it the law; through him the Gospel; through him, finally, knowledge of God. And all flesh is grass, and all the glory of man is like the flowers of the field. The grass dries up, the flower falls away, but the glory of our God endures forever (Isa. 40:6 – 8). This word illuminates the soul like the light of oil and makes friends with the mind. Without the body, how could the Divine economy of the church be brought to its end? Didn’t the Head of the Church, the Lord, live on earth under the shell of flesh, without form and devoid of beauty (Is. 53:3) 468, teaching us to be concerned only with our incorporeal and invisible existence, the root cause of which is God. For the tree of life, says the prophet 469, is contained in a good desire (Prov. 13:12); through this he teaches us that all honest and pure desires are contained in the living God. But don’t these heretics already want to pass off the legal relationship between husband and wife as sin? In their opinion, this relationship is expressed through eating from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 3:5); with the expression I knew (Gen. 4:1) as if the violation of the Divine commandment was indicated in Scripture. But if this explanation is considered plausible, then it must be plausible that the obligation to accept the truth is also indicated by the consequence of eating from the fruit of the tree of life. A decent and temperate marriage may resemble this tree. Doesn’t the Old Testament law already tell us that a person can use marriage rights either decently or immoderately; This is the tree of knowledge for him: do not violate the laws of marriage. What else? Didn’t our Savior heal both physical and mental illnesses? But if the body were the first enemy of the soul, would He begin to increase its strength and restore health? Wouldn't that just mean setting him up against his soul? I tell you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God and corruption will have no place in it; this is the incorruptible and incorruptible incorruptible inheritance (1 Cor. 15:50). And really, what can be common between sin, the offspring of corruption, and righteousness, the child of immortality? Are you so foolish, says the Apostle, that having begun with reason, you now claim the right to achieve perfection by indulging carnal desires (Gal. 3:3)? 18. A warning against two extreme opinions: firstly, against the idea that one should abstain from marriage out of hatred of the Creator; secondly, against the supposed permissibility of various indecencies in marriage, which is supposedly deduced from this So, we were dealing with two kinds of heretics. Some of them completely unnecessarily placed making themselves happy by the saving deeds of righteousness and well-ordered life in the extreme tension of its entire structure, whereas it should have been distinguished only by calm and honorable greatness. This is how the strings on some instruments are sometimes stretched to the highest degree, and they make unusual and irregular sounds, and then break. Likewise, these heretics, proceeding from an evil principle, among curses and blasphemy against God, indulged in all kinds of wickedness and practiced unconditional abstinence, whereas one should have limited oneself only to the integrity of a pious life, chosen and carried out not in contradiction with the principles of sound reason, imbued with thanksgiving to God for the mercies bestowed, not disdaining anything created, nor to those living in marriage feeding hatred and contempt. That the world was created is true; There is also no doubt that the virgin purity of life is something worthy; but it is also indisputable that both of them in those living in them should generate gratitude to God, if only they are aware of the rights and obligations of the position in which they find themselves. Other heretics, on the contrary, giving free rein to their passions, allowed themselves all the excesses and reached the point of complete debauchery, truly becoming like frantic and frantic horses, succumbing only to their bestial and animal will. Just as these, having lost their temper, run around senselessly and neigh at mares, so each of them attacks his neighbor’s wife (Jer. 5:8). Becoming incapable of self-control, they incite others only to acts of voluptuousness. These are the passages of Scripture with which, under the influence of their low passions and meaning, they connected low and pitiful. Bring your inheritance to us; we will all have one common wallet; We will all be girded with a common sash (Proverbs 1:14). Warning against them, the same prophet therefore gives us this wise advice: Do not go on a journey with them; keep your foot from their paths; It is not in vain that the nets are laid for the birds (i.e., innocence). Participants in the murders collect evil on their own heads; it is this that constitutes the treasure of the wicked (Proverbs 1:15–17). Devoted to their dirty vices and teaching their neighbors the same, they are warriors, but they fight only with their tails (Apoc. 9:10). To whom are the inspired lips of the prophet hinting here? To people who are voluptuous and dissolute, who resemble lustful animals waving their tails in the air. These are children of darkness and children of wrath (Eph. 2:3), staining themselves with the filth of murder, rapists of themselves and suicides, but murderers of their neighbors. Cleanse out the old leaven, so that you may be a new lump, cries the Apostle (1 Cor. 5:7). And again, angry at such sinners, he commands us not to enter into any relationship with a brother (in faith) if he is dissolute or a miser or an idolater or a slanderer or betrayed by guilt or a predator of someone else’s property; and even food should not be taken with such a person (1 Cor. 5:11). For, says the Apostle, I died in the law, that I might live only for God. I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live as I lived when I was a slave of voluptuousness, but Christ lives in me with an immaculate and blessed life through my obedience to the commandments. Therefore, then I lived in the flesh carnally, and now, although I live in the same mortal body, I live by faith in the Son of God (Gal. 2:19, 20). Do not enter the path of the pagans and do not enter the city of the Samaritans, the Lord tells us (Matthew 10:5), distracting us from the errors in which they live. Because the end of the wicked is terrible, but so are the ways of all who do evil (Prov. 1:18, 19). Woe to that man, says the Lord; It would have been better for him not to have been born (Matt. 26:24) than to seduce even one of My chosen ones; It would be better if a millstone were hung around his neck and drowned in the depths of the sea, than to lead him astray from the true path and one of My chosen ones (Matthew 18:6); it is because of them that the name of God is blasphemed (Isa. 52:5; Ezek. 36:20; Rom. 2:24) among the Gentiles. Therefore, the Apostle says beautifully: I wrote to you in one of my letters not to associate with the dissolute (1 Cor. 5:11), etc. even to the words: the body is not at all for fornication; it is for the Lord and the Lord for the body (1 Cor. 6:13). Then, in order to further convince us that he does not consider marriage on the same line as some kind of love affair, Paul adds: Or do you not know that whoever enters into a relationship with a corrupt woman becomes one body with her (1 Cor. 6:15)? I ask you: Who would call a girl a harlot before marriage? And do not deviate from each other, says the Apostle, except by agreement for a time (1 Cor. 7:5). In a word, do not shy away. The Apostle shows that the duty of marriage is to bear children; and he expresses it precisely with this literal precision in the verse preceding: The husband show due favor to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband (1 Cor. 7:3). Once the goal of the marriage union has been achieved, the wife becomes an assistant to her husband in overseeing home life and maintaining her husband’s faith in the Lord. And the same Apostle says even more clearly: But to those who are married, I do not command, but the Lord: a wife should not divorce her husband. If she gets divorced, let her not remarry or let her reconcile with her husband; and the husband in the same way should not leave his wife. As for the rest, I will tell them this, not the Lord. If any brother, etc. even to the words: now are holy (1 Cor. 7:14). What will those who blaspheme both the law and marriage respond to these words, as if only the Old Testament law authorized marriage and as if the new covenant in this contradicted the law? The wicked, who avoid marriage and blaspheme the birth of children, what will they say further against these laws! Even the bishop, who is the head of the church, does not the Apostle command to choose from those who govern their families well (1 Tim. 3:2, 4; Titus 1:6)? But in the opinion of the Apostle, does not the house of a single husband’s wife become the house of God? And he says: To the pure all things are pure; But for those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but their mind and conscience are defiled (Titus 1:15). Listen now to how the Apostle curses debauchery and voluptuousness: Do not be deceived: neither libertines and harlots and kinedas, nor idolaters, nor other women of a criminal inclination and connection have criminal ingratiations, nor those who enter into relations with kinedas, nor those who lewdly encroach on their own bodies, nor thieves, nor covetous people, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor predators of the kingdom. They will not inherit God's things. We were like that, but we were washed (1 Cor. 6:9-11). As for those who justify their debauchery by the fact that they are immersed in it out of a desire to abstain from sensuality and serve passions in the future, then they turn out to be wicked. They claim that all wishes and all voluptuousness are permissible. They teach to exchange abstinence for intemperance and shamelessly concentrate all their thoughts and all their hopes on the shameful parts of the body. But through this they prepare for their followers no other end than to be deprived of the kingdom of God, while their name could be written in heaven. It is in vain that they learn their teaching when they have knowledge. They walk along broad paths that lead into pitch darkness. Anything else, my brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if there is any excellence or if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things; what you have been taught, what you have received and heard and seen in me, do it; and the God of peace will be with you (Phil. 4:8, 9). And Peter writes the same in his epistle: So that you may have faith and hope in God, purify your souls by obedience to the truth (1 Peter 1:21, 22), being careful, as obedient children, to conform to the desires that you previously indulged in in your ignorance. Be holy in all the ways of your life, following the example of the Holy One who called you, as it is written: Be holy, for I am holy (1 Peter 1:14–16; Compare Lev. 19:2). However, the need to resist the representatives of false knowledge has led us much further than it should have and has stretched our word against them too long. Here, therefore, in the spirit of the true philosophy of our Gnostic Notes, or their Stromat, the third book ends. From such marital unions in the Pleroma were born, but according to the teachings of the Valentinians, the Aeons. Irin. I, 12: “Therefore, they argued that they should take every possible care to arrange the secret of marriage and inspired the simpletons that “whoever in this age did not love a woman and was not in relations with her, is not from the truth and will not depart from the truth.” Compare in "Strom." V, 14. Blessed. Epiphanius in I, 31 conveys, among other things, the following exposition from their teaching: “The Monad and the One produced the remaining outflows of the Aeons.” But in this place in the Gospel, a third kind of eunuchs is distinguished for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Further, the writer mentions this third kind of eunuchs. Of course, athletes and singers. Compare below in chap. 6. also in Juvenal’s satire of the 11th century. 156. Such abstinence was known, for example. Amaebeus, singer and zither player. From Stobaeus it is known that Diogenes reproached all this kind of people for the selfishness of abstinence, and not for its own sake. Apparently Isidore distinguished between two kinds of Christians, perfect and weak; Some offer prayers to God only in gratitude for their faith in goodness and firmness in it; others, less resistant, fearing falls, needed suppliant prayers that would invoke the help of Divine grace. What follows is an appeal precisely to this second category of Christians. Everything that has been said so far agrees with the word of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 7, 9. It is not because of this that the writer polemicizes against Isidore, but because of what follows. That is, if I attend church meetings. Applying for a blessing to a brother of the faithful or to a priest is wicked, because it is asked for an ungodly cause. Compare what he writes against Valentinian in ch. 29 and others. Tertullian and St. Irenaeus I, 10. Eusebius tells a similar story about them in Histor. 4, 7; St. Irenaeus I, 34; St. Justin in “Conversation with Tryphon”; Athenagoras in "Embassy"; Minucius in Octavia; Tertullian in "Apology" and "To his Wife"; Origen in Op. against Celsus; Epiphanius in the book. 1 against heresies. Compare St. Irenaeus 1, 2. Previously, Pythagoras taught Plato about the Monad. Compare in Strom. IV, 23. Philastrius of Brechsky tells the same story about them in the book. “On Heresies,” Theodoret of Cyrrhus in the book. 1 op. “About the heretic. fables”, Tertullian in “Apology” ch. 7 and 9; Minutius in Octavia. Compare Tertullian in ch. 35 “On the Soul” and the blessed one. Augustine “On Heresies” in ch. 7. Plato's teaching on this subject is contained in the book. 5 “About the State.” It is explained in accordance with Clement and the translator of Plato’s works into Russian, prof. Karpov. The ancients also understood this teaching of the Arians in the interpretation of Epictetus 2, 4; Lucian in The Fugitives; Yevse op. "Oviy in" Proof. Evang."; XIII, 19; Theodoret of Cyrrhus in the laws"; Nikita Choniates in the book. IV of his “Thesavri”. Compare in “Pedagogue” 1, 7. To the places quoted there, one can also add Philo’s remark against this in his “De specialibus legibus”; Tertul. in "Apol." Pythagoras, according to Diogenes Laertius, was asked once: “Quando esset concubendum, Tunc, inquit, cum teipso fieri infirmior vis.” And he never burdened himself with food, drink, or Veneri operam dans. According to Stobe He admonebat: Ne saepe hominem ab homine, i.e. frequenti venereorum usu interdicens. Marcion contrasted the kind and lenient God with the just, inexorable and inhuman God, whom he considered to be the Creator of the world. God is good and unknown, he is the Father of the Lord. Another God is the Creator of the World, the just one, whom the heretic called evil. Matter, essentially evil and the cause of evil, was created by some God. The Creator of the World received it ready-made and created everything from it. St. Irenaeus I, 34 about Tatian: “Marriages were called corruptelas and fornicationes, like Marcion and Saturninus.” About one 90-year-old Marcionite, Theodoret writes: “I knew a certain 90-year-old man from this sect of Marcionites, who, getting up in the morning, washed his face with saliva, spitting it on his hands. And when he was asked about the reason for this, he replied that he did not want to have anything to do with the Creator; nor use the water He created. When they said to him: Why do you eat, drink, dress, sleep and take part in the sacraments, he answered: “Out of necessity I do all this, because without it I could not live and participate in the sacraments.” The fact that this world is a place of execution for souls was discussed by Athenaeus, Prince. IV. Epiphanius discusses the Marcionites and their heresy and others in detail in his Panaria. Seneca mentions the transfusion of souls from body to body, as if from vase to vase, the Pythagorean teaching, epist. 108. Epiphanius assimilates the teaching about this transfusion to Simon the Magus and identifies it. him with metempsychosis, the transmigration of the Pythagoreans, Blessed. Augustine, book LVIII, also mentions the heretics Metangismonites, who imagined the pre-eternal birth of the Son from the Father in the form of a transfusion. Compare Tertullian's doctrine of this in De anima ch. 33. Pamelius traces this teaching back to Plato’s in the Phaedo and other places, where it is said that human souls, depending on life and merit, migrate into various kinds of animals. Bl. Jerome in the last to Avitus says that Origen also borrowed this opinion from Plato. St. Cyril of Alexandria refuted it in his interpretation of the words of the Evangelist John. He enlightens all people. Compare “Stromat IV in Ch. 12; VI in ch. 4. Sirach also imitated him in this comparison: Like green leaves on a thick tree, some fall and others grow: so is the race of flesh and blood, one dies and another is born (XIV, 19). Gregory Gurald in the book “On Pythagorean Symbols”, based on Iamblichus and Olympiodorus, reports about Timyukha, the wife of the Pythagorean Mullius, a Lacedaemonian woman, that when Dionysius forced her to reveal the secret of why Pythagoras was forbidden to eat beans, she furiously bit her tongue, then spat it in the tyrant’s face. The evangelists, however, remain silent about the name of the disciple to whom these words were addressed by the Lord. This phrase is not found in Matthew; in Luke but instead it stands: You go, preach the kingdom of God. Perhaps this follow me writer, citing passages from Scripture from memory, transferred this here from the previous paragraph. The allusion seems to be a place from Rome. 6:11: Consider yourselves dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Or Col. 3:5: Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth, etc. Or perhaps another similar passage from Scripture is meant here. In Strom. II, ch. 20. Eusebius literally transfers this story of Nicholas and the Nicolaitans from here to his church. history III, 29. From here he brings it into his “Heretic. fables" and Theodoret III, 1. These are the Adamites, who considered a certain Prodicus the founder of their sect. Because a tree grows from a seed hidden in the tree's fruit. In application to the subject of speech: if there is no evil, then there is no principle that can resist the good God. Of course the place is like something out of Matthew. 7, 17–18. The heretics precisely thought that this principle, opposing God, constitutes the essence of evil. From “Cassandra” by Lycophron v. 1414. Herod. 7, 35; Knock. 4; Appian in the book. 5, etc. Compare This is the same word production in St. Justin in "Admonition" to Ella." Or "dead man". So the writer above, in ch. 4th, names the human body. Compare at the end of the "Exhortation". This word of Christ the Lord is again given in Excerp. e Theod. and below in chap. 9. In the last place the writer testifies that he borrows it from the Gospel of the Egyptians. The same argument strikes the Marcionites, who denied marriage, and Tertullian “Against Marcion” at the end of the book. 1. Thus, some heretics of the time of Clement argued, too, as those who lived in the time of the Apostle Paul, that the resurrection had already taken place, 2 Tim. 2.18. Menander also taught that his disciples are resurrected in baptism; and as a result of this, on the other side of the tomb they cannot die, but remain not aging and immortal. This is how his teaching is conveyed by St. Irenaeus 1, 21 and Tertullian “On the Soul”, 50. In his other work “On the Resurrection”, 19, Tertullian again mentioned that by resurrection we should mean quickening and rebirth in God, upon acceptance of the true teaching, and upon dispelling the darkness of ignorance, or otherwise, upon rising from the tomb of the old man. Then, by the resurrection of the Lord’s followers, we must understand the putting on of Him in baptism.” Eustachius, in the scholia on the 24th canto of the Iliad, notes that “at all times during competitions, athletes do not admittebantur ad coeundum cum feminis. Horace “O poetic. art" art. 412: “Young man. whoever strives to achieve his intended goal on the lists endures and accomplishes a lot in advance, he sweats a lot and freezes a lot, as well as abstinence venere et vino.” Plato mentions Chryson in the Protagoras; in his work “On Laws,” book. VIII, among the athletes abstinentibus se a rebus venereis he lists Crisson, Astul and Diopompe. Astul, a pupil of Pythagoras, ran three Olympic stages and another double stage at once. Ameybey kipharoid helped out for singing on some days due to his talent. Elian “Different. history" 3, 30. Aelian also tells about Eubates the Cyrene (Various Histor. 10, 2). Compare Strom. 4 at the end of ch. 22. Acts 21:8, 9. But here we are not talking about the Apostle Philip, one of the twelve, but about Philip, one of the seven deacons. Clement calls the evangelist an Apostle. In the quoted place it says: “Hey, I ask you, “sincere collaborator,” help them, which refers to Syntyche. Among the ancient Hellenes. especially among the Athenians, it was sometimes customary to address women as husbands. kind of thing, of which there are many examples in Homer. Similarly, in our country women are also called “members” of this or that society. Accordingly, for example, in Constit. Apostol. 3, 15, the shepherds of the ancient church also addressed women, i.e. putting the adjective into masculine. kind. This is the reason why our writer believes St. Paul married to Syntyche. Those who wrote about the Apostle Paul still differ on this matter. Compare eg and in Farrar's "Life and Works of St. Apostle Paul." The ancient church tradition almost unanimously speaks out for the permanent celibacy of the Apostle. Place in the last St. Ignatius to the Philadelphians, ch. 4, apparently also speaking about the marriage life of the Apostle, is undoubtedly interpolated in this part. On this point, see the ruling in Constit. apost. 3, 15. Compare in “Teacher” 3, 12. Clement shared the error of some ancient church writers, Josephus, Tertullian, Justin, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Cyprian, Lactantius, Eusebius and the Apocrypha, about the fall of angels through rapprochement with the daughters of men (Gen. 6:1), while the whole point is in the incorrect translation into Greek Hebraism of the sons of God through Angels God's. Origen (Against Celsus, 5) and Cyril of Alexandria (Against the Anthropomorphites, ch. 17) did not share this error. It is found in Clement’s “Pedagus.” 3, chapter 2; Strom. 5, chapter 1 and other places. They think that this Agathopod or Agathon is the same person as the Agathopod who accompanied St. Ignatius on his way to Rome for martyrdom. In the Epistle to the Smyrneans, ch. 10, ev. Ignatius writes: “You did very well that you accepted Philo, Gaius and Agathopod, who followed me, as deacons of Christ.” The writer has already had the opportunity to say a few words about them in Strom. 1, 15. Bo 2 Cor 4:16. Regarding the death of the outer man, one must also understand this saying: But the woman who loved pleasure died alive (1 Tim. 5:6). Compare “Teacher” 2, in ch. 10. An expression meaning not only one who has never been married, but also one who, after the death of one wife, did not marry another. The Latin coelebs in this case is completely equal in meaning to the Greek αγαμος. Therefore, the Apostle says: But to those who have entered into marriage I command, not I, but the Lord: the wife should not divorce her husband. If she gets divorced, she must remain “celibate” (1 Cor. 7:10, 11). This refers to the Platonic division of the soul into three parts: desirable, angry and reasonable, which the writer already spoke about at the beginning of the 3rd book. "Teacher." Another division of the soul. So Clement's student Origen in Philocalia: “Man consists of body, soul and spirit.” Irenaeus 5:9: “The perfect man consists of body, soul and spirit.” But even before their St. Paul the Apostle in 1 Thess.: May the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely, and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved completely without blemish at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Or maybe from some apocrypha. Compare This book is the end of chapter. 1st and in ch. 12th. Similar to Plato in Cratylus. Similar below in ch. 18th. 2 Cor. 11:3; compare above in ch. 9th. Compare about Tatiana at the blessed Epiphany heresy 46. Compare "Stromat" 1 in ch. 15. And it is more likely that this word was borrowed by the writer from the last. Barnabas, ch. 11th. By bringing it, he wants to say that the bodily and material in itself is not sinful, but a trace. and marriage and eating wine and meat. Compare what the writer says about this is not far from the end of this book. Compare follow up at the end. Epistle to the Corinthians by Clement of Rome. A similar saying appears in Luke. 20:35. Compare Strom. IV, in ch. 12. Pythagoras and Plato taught that there are incorporeal souls, lowered into bodies only when they fall into some sin as punishment for that. Similar above in ch. 6th: “And didn’t the ancient righteous people gratefully use their share of created things”? The writer wants to say by this that by the father and other loved ones the Savior means society, and when He then commands to hate them, then one should understand by this the commandment not to get carried away by civil orders. In modern language this passage from the prophet could be translated as follows; “Their course of affairs will stand high, firmly and unchangeably; and they will give birth to children not out of disgust and curse, i.e. to being equal to non-existence, and to being substantial”, achieving certain good goals. St. Clement of Rome quotes these same words of Job in his 1st letter to Cor. in ch. 17th; this passage from it is given below by our writer in Strom. IV, ch. The 17th. More about this in "Strom." VII, ch. 12th. Above, at the beginning of Chapter 13, he is named as the founder of the Docetes sect, who taught that Christ had not a real body, but a ghostly one. Our writer, together with other fathers, explains these words about Christ in “Teacher” 3 at the end of chapter. 1st and in "Strom." 2 in ch. 5th. The writer calls Solomon a prophet both in the next chapter and in “Strom.” VI, 15.