The Christian View

It is, however, by no means the views of these writers themselves to which I refer, for these are opposed to mine, but solely to their carefully collected accounts and quotations, which deserve full acceptance as quite trustworthy, just because both these writers are opponents of celibacy, the former a rationalistic Catholic, and the other a Protestant candidate in theology, who speaks exactly like one. In the first-named work we find, vol. i. p. 166, in that reference, the following result expressed:

“In accordance with the Church view, as it may be read in canonical Church Fathers, in the Synodal and Papal instructions, and in innumerable writings of orthodox Catholics, perpetual chastity is called a divine, heavenly, angelic virtue, and the obtaining of the assistance of divine grace for this end is made dependent upon earnest prayer. We have already shown that this Augustinian doctrine is by Canisius and in the decrees of the Council of Trent expressed as an unchanging belief of the Church. That, however, it has been retained as a dogma till the present day is sufficiently established by the June number, 1831, of the magazine ‘Der Katholik.’

It is said there, p. 263: ‘In Catholicism the observance of a perpetual chastity, for the sake of God, appears as in itself the highest merit of man. The view that the observance of continual chastity as an end in itself sanctifies and exalts the man is, as every instructed Catholic is convinced, deeply rooted in Christianity, both as regards its spirit and its express precepts. The decrees of the Council of Trent have abolished all possible doubt on this point….’ It must at any rate be confessed by every unprejudiced person, not only that the doctrine expressed by ‘Der Katholik’ is really Catholic, but also that the proofs adduced may be quite irrefutable for a Catholic reason, because they are drawn so directly from the ecclesiastical view, taken by the Church, of life and its destiny.” It is further said in the same work, p. 270: “Although both Paul calls the forbidding to marry a false doctrine, and the still Judaistic author of the Epistle to the Hebrews enjoins that marriage shall be held in honour by all, and the bed kept undefiled (Heb. xiii 4), yet the main tendency of these two sacred writers is not on that account to be mistaken. Virginity is for both the perfect state, marriage only a make-shift for the weak, and only as such to be held inviolable. The highest effort, on the other hand, was directed to complete, material putting off of self.

The self must turn and refrain from all that tends only to its own pleasure, and that only temporarily.” Lastly, p. 288: “We agree with the Abbé Zaccaria, who asserts that celibacy (not the law of celibacy) is before everything to be deduced from the teaching of Christ and the Apostle Paul.”

What is opposed to this specially Christian view is everywhere and always merely the Old Testament, with its ¿±Ωƒ± ∫±ª± ªπ±Ω. This appears with peculiar distinctness from that important third book of the Stromata of Clement, where, arguing against the en- cratistic heretics mentioned above, he constantly opposes to them only Judaism, with its optimistic history of creation, with which the world-denying tendency of the New Testament is certainly[442] in contradiction. But the connection of the New Testament with the Old is at bottom only external, accidental, and forced; and the one point at which Christian doctrine can link itself on to the latter is only to be found, as has been said, in the story of the fall, which, moreover, stands quite isolated in the Old Testament, and is made no further use of. But, in accordance with the account in the Gospels, it is just the orthodox adherents of the Old Testament who bring about the crucifixion of the founder of Christianity, because they find his teaching in conflict with their own. In the said third book of the Stromata of Clement the antagonism between optimism with theism on the one hand, and pessimism with ascetic morality on the other, comes out with surprising distinctness. This book is directed against the Gnostics, who just taught pessimism and asceticism, that is, μ≥∫¡±ƒμπ± (abstinence of every kind, but especially from all sexual satisfaction); on account of which Clement censures them vigorously.

But, at the same time, it becomes apparent that even the spirit of the Old Testament stands in this antagonism with that of the New Testament. For, apart from the fall, which appears in the Old Testament like a hors d’œuvre, the spirit of the Old Testament is diametrically opposed to that of the New Testament—the former optimistic, the latter pessimistic. Clement himself brings this contradiction out prominently at the end of the eleventh chapter (¿¡ø√±¿øƒμπΩøºμΩøΩ ƒøΩ †±≈ªøΩ ƒÛ ö¡π√ƒ√ ∫.ƒ.ª.), although he will not allow that it is a real contradiction, but explains it as only apparent,—like a good Jew, as he is. In general it is interesting to see how with Clement the New and the Old Testament get mixed up together; and he strives to reconcile them, yet for the most part drives out the New Testament with the Old. Just at the beginning of the third chapter he objects to the Marcionites that they find fault with the creation, after the example of Plato and Pythagoras; for Marcion teaches that nature is bad, made out of bad materials (∆≈√π¬ ∫±∫∑, μ∫ ƒμ Qª∑¬ ∫±∫∑¬); therefore one ought not to people this world, but to abstain from marriage.

Now Clement, to whom in general the Old Testament is much more congenial and convincing than the New, takes this very much amiss. He sees in it their flagrant ingratitude to and enmity and rebellion against him who has made the world, the just demiurgus, whose work they themselves are, and yet despise the use of his creatures, in impious rebellion “forsaking the natural opinion” (±Ωƒπƒ±√√øºμΩøπ ƒÛ ¿øπ∑ƒ√ ƒÛ √∆…Ω, … μ≥∫¡±ƒμπ¬ ƒ√ ¿¡ø¬ ƒøΩ ¿μ¿øπ∑∫øƒ± μ«∏¡≥, º∑ ≤ø≈ªøºμΩøπ «¡∑√∏±π ƒøπ¬ Q¿Ω ±≈ƒø≈ ∫ƒπ√∏μπ√πΩ, … ±√μ≤μπ ∏μøº±«π≥ ƒ…Ω ∫±ƒ± ∆≈√πΩ μ∫√ƒ±Ωƒμ¬ ªø≥π√º…π). At the same time, in his holy zeal, he will not allow the Marcionites even the honour of originality, but, armed with his well-known erudition, he brings it against them, and supports his case with the most beautiful quotations, that even the ancient philosophers, that Heraclitus and Empedocles, Pythagoras and Plato, Orpheus and Pindar, Herodotus and Euripides, and also the Sibyls, lamented deeply the wretched nature of the world, thus taught pessimism. Now in this learned enthusiasm he does not observe that in this way he is just giving the Marcionites water for their mill, for he shows that

“All the wisest of all the ages” have taught and sung what they do, but confidently and boldly he quotes the most decided and energetic utterances of the an- cients in this sense. Certainly they cannot lead him astray. Wise men may mourn the sadness of existence, poets may pour out the most affecting lamentations about it, nature and experience may cry out as loudly as they will against optimism,—all this does not touch our Church Father: he holds his Jewish revelation in his hand, and remains confident. The demiurgus made the world. From this it is a priori certain that it is excellent, and it[444] may look as it likes. The same thing then takes place with regard to the second point, the μ≥∫¡±ƒμπ±, through which, according to his view, the Marcionites show their ingratitude towards the demiurgus.

Here now the tragic poets have preceded the Encratites (to the preju- dice of their originality) and have said the same things. For since they also lament the infinite misery of existence, they have added that it is better to bring no children into such a world; which he now again supports with the most beautiful passages, and, at the same time, accuses the Pythagoreans of having renounced sexual pleasure on this ground. But all this touches him not; he sticks to his principle that all these sin against the demiurgus, in that they teach that one ought not to marry, ought not to beget children, ought not to bring new miserable beings into the world, ought not to provide new food for death (¥0 μ≥∫¡±ƒμ𱬠±√μ≤ø≈√π μπ¬ ƒμ ƒ∑Ω ∫ƒπ√πΩ ∫±π ƒøΩ
≥πøΩ ¥∑ºπø≈¡≥øΩ, ƒøΩ ¿±Ωƒø∫¡±ƒø¡± ºøΩøΩ ∏μøΩ, ∫±π ¥π¥±√∫ø≈√π, º∑ ¥μπΩ ¿±¡±¥μ«μ√∏±π ≥±ºøΩ ∫±π ¿±π¥ø¿øπ ±Ω, º∑¥μ ±Ωƒμπ√±≥μπΩ ƒÛ ∫ø√ºÛ ¥≈√ƒ≈«∑√øΩƒ±¬ ƒμ¡ø≈¬, º∑¥μ μ¿π«ø¡∑≥μπΩ ∏±Ω±ƒÛ ƒ¡ø∆∑Ω—c. 6). Since the learned Church Father thus denounces μ≥∫¡±ƒμπ±, he seems to have had no presentiment that just after his time the celibacy of the Christian priesthood would be more and more introduced, and finally, in the eleventh century, raised to the position of a law, because it is in keeping with the spirit of the New Testament. It is just this spirit which the Gnostics have grasped more profoundly and understood better than our Church Father, who is more Jew than Christian. The conception of the Gnostics comes out very clearly at the beginning of the ninth chapter, where the following passage is quoted from the Gospel of the Egyptians: ë≈ƒø¬ μπ¿μΩ A £…ƒ∑¡, “∑ª∏øΩ ∫±ƒ±ª≈√±π ƒ± μ¡≥± ƒ∑¬ ∏∑ªμπ±¬;” ∏∑ªμ𱬠ºμΩ, ƒ∑¬ μ¿π∏≈ºπ±¬; μ¡≥± ¥μ, ≥μΩμ√πΩ ∫±π ∆∏ø¡±Ω (Ajunt enim [445] dixisse Servatorem: veni ad dissolvendum opera feminæ; feminæ quidem, cupiditatis; opera autem, generationem et interitum); but quite specially at the end of the thirteenth and the beginning of the fourteenth chapter. The Church certainly was obliged to consider how to set a religion upon its legs that could also walk and stand in the world as it is, and among men; therefore it declared these persons to be heretics. At the conclusion of the seventh chapter our Church Father opposes Indian asceticism, as bad, to Christian Judaism; whereby the fundamental difference of the spirit of the two religions is clearly brought out. In Judaism and Christianity everything runs back to obedience or disobedi- ence to the command of God: Q¿±∫ø∑ ∫±π ¿±¡±∫ø∑; as befits us creatures, !ºπΩ, ƒøπ¬ ¿μ¿ª±√ºμΩøπ¬ Q¿ø ƒ∑¬ ƒø≈ †±Ωƒø∫¡±ƒø¡ø¬ ≤ø≈ª∑√μ…¬ (nobis, qui Omnipotentis voluntate efficti sumus), chap. 14. Then comes, as a second duty, ª±ƒ¡μ≈μπΩ ∏μÛ ∂…Ωƒπ, to serve God, extol His works, and overflow with thankfulness. Certainly the matter has a very different aspect in Brahmanism and Buddhism, for in the latter all improvement and conversion, and the only deliverance we can hope for from this world of suffering, this Sansara, proceeds from the knowledge of the four fundamental truths: (1) dolor; (2) doloris ortus; (3) doloris inte- ritus; (4) octopartita via ad doloris sedationem (Dammapadam, ed. Fausböll, p. 35 et 347). The explanation of these four truths will be found in Bournouf, “Introduct. à l’hist. du Buddhisme,” 434 The World as Will and Idea (Vol. 3 of 3) p. 629, and in all expositions of Buddhism.