188

GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS.

general distinction between those who decidedly belonged to one class or the other, that the former believed, and the latter did not believe, the divine mission of Christ. In respect, also, to one noted pseudo-Christian sect, which has been mistaken for a branch of the Gnostics, I mean the Carpocratians, it will appear, I think, from what is about to be said, that its members did not even hold Gnostic doctrines. We must, therefore, separate, as far as possible, the pseudoChristians from the Gnostics; and to this subject we will next attend.

CHAPTER IV.

ON SOME Pseudo-chrisTIAN SECTS AND INDIVIDUALS, WHO HAVE BEEN IMPROPERLY CONFOUNDED WITH THE GNOSTICS.

We have seen that Simon Magus is represented by the fathers as the parent of all the heretical sects, while, at the same time, he is described not as a disciple of Christ, but as opposing himself to Christ as a rival. His followers, the Simonians, therefore, were not Christians. These facts may induce us readily to give credit to the supposition, that among those who may seem to be, or who are, enumerated as Christian heretics, by some one or more of the fathers, there were other sects or individuals who had no title to the name of Christian; though many of them may have held the Gnostic doctrine, that the material universe is the work of a being or beings imperfect or evil. This confusion, if it exist, of Christian and pseudo-Christian sects must be removed, before

we can form a correct notion of the Gnostics; and the investigation of the subject may also serve to make us acquainted with the character of the times, and the effects produced by the promulgation of Christianity.

*

AMONG the sects referred to, the Carpocratians may be first mentioned. They had their origin in Alexandria, and became conspicuous about the middle of the second century. By Irenæus they are classed with the Gnostics; and, according to him, they affirmed that the world was made by angels. But a comparison of his whole account with the information afforded by Clement of Alexandriat may lead us to the conclusion, that the Carpocratians were neither Christians, nor heathen Gnostics, but a corrupt sect of Platonists, who pretended to regard Christ as a very eminent philosopher among the Barbarians, as Confucius was at one time celebrated by European men of letters. This may appear

from what follows.

With Carpocrates was connected, as a founder of the sect, his son Epiphanes, the

Cont. Hæres. Lib. I. c. 25. pp. 103-105. c. 28. § 2. p. 107. Lib. II. cc. 31-33. pp. 164-168.

† Stromat. III. § 2. pp. 511-515.

author of a work "Concerning Justice," from which Clement quotes a series of passages. The purpose of them is to maintain that no property should exist, but that all things should be common to all. "The justice of God," Epiphanes says, "is a certain equal distribution." Following out his principles, he main- | tains, as Plato had taught in his Republic, that there should be a community of women; -women in Egypt and Greece, as in the East, being regarded much in the light of property. For his doctrine of equality he argues from the natural order of things; according to which, for example, God gives the light of the sun equally to all; and a common nature, and food in common, to all the individuals of the different species of animals. This order he vindicates as good, he regards it as a manifestation of the great moral law of all beings, and ascribes it to the "Maker and Father of All," that is, to the Supreme God.

It appears, therefore, that Epiphanes regarded the order of nature as good, and as proceeding from the Supreme Being. He differed, therefore, from the Gnostics in their

* Stromat. III. ubi supra.

† Τὴν δικαιοσύνην τοῦ Θεοῦ κοινωνίαν τινὰ εἶναι μετ' ἰσότητος. p. 512.

fundamental doctrine. They considered the order of nature as full of defects and evils, and ascribed it, in consequence, to an imperfect Creator. But Epiphanes, it is clear, had no such being in view. He ascribes the constitution of things in the material universe to the Supreme God, whom alone he regards as the Creator. He was, moreover, so far from holding the doctrine of the Gnostics, which identified the Creator with the God of the Jews, that, as quoted by Clement, he considered the command, "Thou shalt not covet" as ridiculous, and more especially the command, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife";-they being, according to him, directly opposite to the ordinances of the Creator as manifested in his works. Epiphanes, then, was not a Gnostic, nor was his father Carpocrates, from whom he derived his principles, nor the fol lowers of both, by whom they were adopted Nor had they, I conceive, more title to be con sidered as Christians.

It is the obvious remark of Clement, tha the doctrines alleged clearly subvert the Lav and the Gospel. Upon their first aspect, the show themselves to be the doctrines of one who had no deference for the divine authorit of Christ. Their advocate, Epiphanes, was