is evident that those which he mentions were derived from the Ophites, as Origen plainly informs us. This is confirmed by the fifteenth figure in Chifflet, and by Beausobre's observations, which I refer for particulars. SECTION XXVIII. Conclusions drawn from the foregoing Observations. UPON a review therefore of the whole of this long discourse, concerning the Abraxas of the Basilidians, and the figures which have been attributed to them, I cannot help concluding, very much in the words of Beausobre: 1. That Abraxas was not the god of the Basilidians. 2. That this name signifies nothing but the sun, which was never worshipped by them. 3. That the figures both in Chifflet and Montfaucon are, for the most part, Egyptian. 4. That there is no kind of proof that any of them belonged to the Basilidians. 5. That those which have Iao, Sabaoth, &c. upon them, were the works of magicians, who never made any profession of Christianity. 6. That some of these figures derived their origin from the Simonians and Ophites, who were not Christians either in belief or profession. SECTION XXIX. Of the Scriptures received by Basilides. I SHALL finish this article by giving an account of the scriptures which were received by Basilides. According to Irenæus he must have disregarded the Old Testament; or at least he could not give the same authority to that, as he did to the New: because he asserted that the prophecies in the Old Testament were given by those angels who were the makers and princes of the world; and that the law in particular was promulgated by their chief, by him who brought the people of Israel out of the land of Egypt. Since therefore Jesus Christ, according to him, came to deliver the human race from the power of the princes of the world, and to destroy their works, there must be a kind of opposition between the law and the gospel. As a Christian therefore he could pay no great regard to it. But he looked upon the law as a proper rule, established by the Creator, for the direction of the people of Israel; and though he did not believe it to come from the true God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, yet he considered it as a revelation given by an angel, of whom he spoke with respect. d e As to the New Testament, it doth not appear but he received the whole, or at least the greater part of it. Jerom indeed says that both Marcion and Basilides were not content with rejecting the 'Old Testament, but that they also disputed some parts of the New, corrupting the gospels, and cutting off from St. Paul the two epistles to Timothy, the epistle to Titus, and the epistle hæc etiam ignota Αναναηλ, Προσοφαιήλ, Κεσιηλ, Σεριηλ quibus addas Satouiel, ut Latine in gemmâ quadam legitur. Pal. Græ. lib. 2. cap. 8. p. 177. a • Μηδαμως μεν ύπο Χρισιανων ονομαζομένων, οίμαι δε υπο Οδιανων παραλαμβανομένων. κ. τ. λ. Con. Cel. lib. 5. p. 295. ed. Cantab. Opp. 1. p. 653. D. Bened. Hist. du Manich. Tom. ii. n. xiii. p. 64, 65. c Prophetias autem et ipsas a mundi fabricatoribus fuisse ait principibus, proprie autem legem a principe eorum, eum qui eduxerit populum de terrâ Ægypti-Patrem misisse Nun suum (et hunc esse qui dicitur Christus) in libertatem credentium ei a potestate eorum qui mundum fabricaverunt-Et liberatos igitur eos a mundi fabricatoribus. Ad. Hær. lib. 1. cap. 23. p. 98. d Esse autem principem ipsorum (angelorum) eum qui Judæorum putatur esse Deus. Et quondam is suis hominibus, id est Judæis, voluit subjicere reliquas gentes, &c. Ibid. Beausobre, Hist. du Manich. Tom. ii. c. 1. n. iv. p. 5. c. iv. n. iii. p. 51. f Marcionem loquor et Basilidem—qui vetus laniant testamentum: tamen eos aliquâ ex parte ferremus, si saltem in novo continerent manus suas; et non auderent vel evangelistas violare, vel apostolos—Nonnullas (epistolas) integras repudiandas crediderunt: ad Timotheum videlicet utramque, ad Hebræos, et ad Titum. Hieron. in ep. ad Tit. in Proem. Vol. 4. p. 407. Martiaraynay. b to the Hebrews.' But Jerom frequently wrote with precipitation and passion when he was reproaching heretics. It ought also to be observed that Marcion and Basilides were very different in their opinions on many points. Marcion received only the gospel of St. Luke. Basilides certainly received the gospel of St. Matthew; for there are several references to it in his explanations of doctrines or practices, which are given us by Clement of Alexandria, and there is no proof that he rejected the other three. Neither Irenæus, Tertullian, Clement, Origen, or Theodoret, accuse him of this, or of rejecting any of St. Paul's epistles. On the contrary, there is positive evidence from the same Clement that Isidore, his son, received the first epistle to the Corinthians. And there is from Origen a clear proof to the contrary of what Jerom lays to his charge, when he ranks Basilides with Marcion as a corrupter of the gospel; for the former writer, in his answer to Celsus, who accused the Christians in general of corrupting the scriptures, says that he knew of no Christians who had altered the text of the gospel, except the followers of Valentinus and Marcion, and perhaps those of Lucan.' This confirms the explanation hereafter given of that passage of Origen, where mention is made of the gospel of Basilides; that Origen means nothing more by that expression than his commentaries upon the gospel. Ambrose and Jerom copied from Origen. That Basilides paid great respect to the gospel, is evident from his writing commentaries upon it, which he divided into twenty-four books. Two fragments of these may be seen in Grabe, one taken from the thirteenth, the other from the twenty-third book of these commen taries. f He also certainly received the epistle to the Romans, as appears from Origen's commentary upon the fifth chapter, where he quotes the words of chap. vii. 9, "when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." Upon this he observes that Basilides, without attending to the sense and connection, endeavoured to deduce from the former part of the verse, viz. "I was alive without the law once," his absurd and nonsensical notion of a Pythagorean mctempsychosis; therefore he must have allowed the authority of this epistle; and as he is not accused of rejecting any other of the books of the New Testament, except by St. Jerom, and this in a cursory manner, his name being joined with that of Marcion, there is reason to believe that he received the whole New Testament as authentic, though he perverted the meaning of many places, and drew from many others very absurd and foolish consequences. SECTION XXX. Of the Gospel of Basilides. k h THERE is mention made in Origen's Commentary on Luke of a gospel of Basilides. Ambrose has spoken of the same, as hath Jerom * also. The two last undoubtedly copied it from Origen. The most probable opinion is, that the twenty-four books of Commentaries which Agrippa Castor speaks of, were the very gospel of Basilides. This is the opinion of Beausobre, a Μονῳ δε κεχρηται τότῳ τῷ χαρακτήρι τῷ κατα Λεκαν Ευαγγελίω. Epi. ad Hær. 42. p. 309. D. Ούτος εκ μεν των ευαγγελίων το κατα Λεκαν εδέξατο μονον. Theo. Hær. Fab. lib. 1. cap. 24. p. 210. D. Strom. lib. 4. p. 506. C. & lib. 3. p. 426. A. B. See p. 542, of this chapter notes and e. Strom. lib. 3. p. 427. A. & D. d Contra Cels. lib. 2. p. 77. Can. p. 411. Ben. See the passage at length under Lucian, p. 5. note 2. • Φησιν αυτόν εις μεν το Ευαγγέλιον τέσσαρα προς τους EixoσI σurtağaι Bixia. Eus. Ecc. Hist. lib. 4. cap. 7. p. 120. A. f Spicileg. Tom. ii. p, 39, &c. Ego inquit (Paulus) mortuus sum, cœpit enim mihi jam reputari peccatum. Sed hæc Basilides non advertens de lege naturali debere intelligi, ad ineptas et impias fabulas sermonem apostolicum traxit in Pythagoricum dogma: id est, quod animæ in alia atque alia corpora transfundantur, ex hoc apos m toli dicto conatur adstruere. Orig. Com. in Epis. ad Rom. cap. 5. Tom. ii. p. 530. Basil. 1571. Vid. etiam Grab. Spici. T. ii. p. 43. h Ausus est Basilides scribere Evangelium, et suo illud nomine titulare. Homil. in Luc. 1. 1. in init. i Ausus est etiam Basilides scribere, quod dicitur, secundum Basilidem. Ambro. Pref. in Com. in Luc. init. Hæresium fuere principia, ut est illud-Basilidis atque Apellis, &c. Hieron. Præf, in Comm. in Mat. Eus. His. Ecc. lib. 4. c. 7. p. 120. A. Origène appelle ce livre l'Evangile de Basilide-Mais S. Clément d'Alexandrie ne nous permet pas de douter, que ce ne fût simplement un commentaire sur l'Evangile qu' Origène a jugé à-propos d'appeler l'Evangile de Basilide. Hist. Man. T. ii. n. 2. p. 3, 4. On parle d'un Evangile de Basilide; c'étoit un commentaire sur les Evangiles. Ibid. Tom. i. p. 454, and p. 39. of Fabricius, and of Mr. Jones. It indeed appears improbable that he should compose an apocryphal history of our Saviour, and give it his own name, when he received the other authentic gospels. SECTION XXXI. Of the Prophets Barcabbas and Barcoph. As to the prophecies of the prophets Barcabbas and Barcoph, or Parchor, they were undoubtedly some oriental books which Basilides met with in his journey into the East, and brought with him to Alexandria; and not forgeries of his own, as Eusebius would have us believe. SECTION XXXII. Of the Odes of Basilides. CAVE makes him, on the authority of Origen, the author of some odes. Grabe seems to doubt the exactness of the reference, but he afterwards says that he found in a manuscript copy some words of Origen to this purpose, that they,' the heretics, repeat the hymns of Valen⚫tinus and the odes of Basilides.' SECTION XXXIII. These Things prove the Authenticity and wide Spread of the Scriptures of the New Testament. FROM this whole chapter it appears that the writings of the New Testament were early spread abroad among Christians, and that commentaries and expositions were very soon written on different parts of them, particularly on the gospels. This would tend to make the knowledge of them more general, and to keep them uncorrupted; for by this means those who might attempt to falsify them in any respect would be the sooner and the more easily detected. CHA P. III. OF CARPOCRATES AND HIS FOLLOWERS. SECTION I. Some Account of Carpocrates and Epiphanes from Clement of Alexandria and other WE come now to the Carpocratians. I shall observe their history and time, their principles in general, their moral principles and manners, and, lastly, their testimony to the scriptures. Clement of Alexandria says of them in these very words: The followers of Carpocrates και μαθητής, εν τω πρωτῳ των προφητε Παρχαρ εξηγετικών, • Οι δε απο Καρποκρατες και Επιφανες αναγόμενοι, κοινας BIVAI TAS YOVAINas aţiei. Str. lib. 3. p. 428. A. • and Epiphanes think that women ought to be common: from whom much reproach has been derived to the Christian name.' He informs us that Epiphanes, whose works also are extant, was the son of Carpocrates, who was an Alexandrian; his mother's name was Alexandria, born in the island of Cephalene. He lived to be seventeen years of age only; and after his death was honoured as a god at Sama, in the afore-mentioned island. There they erected to him a temple made of stone, with altars, a grove, and a museum. And every new moon, on the day when Epiphanes was consecrated, the Cephalenians met together, and celebrated that birth-day of his with hymns, libations, sacrifices and feastings. He was instructed by his father in the whole circle of sciences, particularly the Platonic philosophy. He was the author of the monadic science, from whom arose the heresy of the Carpocratians. Clement then proceeds to quote a long passage out of a book of Epiphanes, entitled, Of Justice, or Righteousness; which passage Clement supposes to teach licentiousness, contrary to the doctrine of the gospel. Theodoret too says that Carpocrates was an Alexandrian; but Epiphanius calls him a Cephalenian, probably by mistake, his wife having been of that country. Epiphanius gives the like account that Clement does of the worship paid to Epiphanes by the Cephalenians; and says that his vast learning was a great inducement to that people to pay him such honour.? May I be permitted to question the truth of this? Surely it could not be a Christian tə whose honour these idolatrous rites were practised; nor could they be Christians that performed them; that temple must have been raised by heathens. Probably therefore the Epiphanes to whom those honours were given, was some other person, and not Epiphanes the son of Carpocrates, the Christian heretic. Theodoret takes no notice of these things in his chapter of Carpocrates; though Epiphanes is there mentioned; and of whom he says that he amplified or improved upon his father's doctrine.' Nor does Irenæus say any thing of this matter. Indeed Epiphanes is but once mentioned, or occasionally referred to by Irenæus. Nor is he at all mentioned by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History; though he has twice mentioned the Carpocratians; and in one of those places, beside Jewish and Samaritan heresies, all these following, the Menandrians, the Marcionites, the Carpocratians, the Valentinians, the Basilidians, and Saturnilians. I might add that it was not customary for Christians to erect temples in the former part of the second century, in which time Epiphanes is supposed to have died. с That I may at once take in the chief things relating to Epiphanes, I would now farther observe that Epiphanius speaks of Epiphanes in the chapter of Secundus the Valentinian. And it is now common with learned " moderns, to consider him as a Valentinian; whether rightly or not, I cannot stay to inquire. in SECTION II. Of the Time in which Carpocrates lived. i BARONIUS Speaks of the Carpocratians at the year 120: Basnage at the year 122; Tillemont' thinks they might appear about the year 130; Dodwell conjectures that * Epiphanes died about the year 140; Irenæus says that Marcellina came to Rome in the time of Anicetus, which Dodwell computes to have been about the year 142; Massuet about the year 160; Theodoret expressly placeth Carpocrates and Epiphanes in the reign of Adrian. By all ancient writers of heresies in general, the Carpocratians are reckoned an early heresy; for they are the twentyseventh in Epiphanius, or the seventh Christian heresy. The order is the same in Augustine, who follows Epiphanius. They are supposed by some to have been mentioned by Celsus; but that is not certain. How long they subsisted I do not know: but they are continually spoken of by Irenæus, as in being in his time. SECTION III. Of the Principles of the Carpocratians concerning the Creation. b THE Carpocratians are often mentioned by Irenæus; but there are only two or three pas sages of his containing divers particulars relating to them, on which I shall chiefly insist. с He there assures us that Carpocrates and his followers say the world was made by angels, much inferior to the eternal Father. To the like purpose Theodoret: and Epiphanius, that he held one supreme principle, the Father of all, unknown and unnamed, or incomprehensi⚫ble; and that the world, and the things therein were made by angels, much inferior to the unknown Father.' The author of the Additions to Tertullian's Book of Prescriptions does not much differ from the authors already quoted. � SECTION IV. Of their Opinion concerning the Person of Jesus Christ. IRENEUS immediately proceeds to say what they thought of the person of Jesus: that he was born of Joseph, and was like other men, except that his soul was more firm and pure, and that he remembered what he had seen with the eternal Father: that he was educated among the Jews, and obtained power to surmount his sufferings, and after that ascended to the Father: and that those souls who believed in him should do so likewise; that is, only as to their souls. Epiphanius says, their" opinion concerning Christ was that he was born of Joseph and Mary; but excelled other men in temperance, and the holiness and virtue of his life.' He also speaks of their supposing the mind of Christ to have had a wonderful strength, or firmness, and to have remembered what he saw in his pre-existent state, and the like. Theodoret's account likewise is, that they believed Jesus to have been a man, born of Joseph and Mary, like other men: but that he excelled in virtue; and having a pure soul, he remembered his conversation with * Κελσος μεν εν οιδε-- Καρποκρατίανές από Σαλόμης. Orig. c. Cels. I. v. p. 272. Sp. 626. Ben. b Et adversus eos qui sunt a Saturnino, et Basilide, et Carpocrate, et reliquos Gnosticorum, qui eadem similiter dicunt, idem dicatur. lib. 2. cap. 31. al. 56. p. 164. Mass. 185. Gr. Super hæc arguentur qui sunt a Simone, et Carpocrate, et si qui alii virtutes operari dicuntur. Ibid. Mass. p. 186. Gr. Si itaque et nunc nomen Domini nostri Jesu Christi beneficia præstat, sed non Simonis, neque Menandri, neque Carpocratis. Ibid. cap. 32. al. 57. p. 166. Mass. p. 189. Gr. Carpocrates autem, et qui ab eo, mundum quidemn, et ea quæ in eo sunt, ab angelis multo inferioribus ingenito patre factum esse dicunt. lib. i. cap. 25. al. 24. p. 103. Mass. p. 39. Gr. 4 Ὑπο μεν των αγγελων και αυτός κτισιν έφησε γεγενησθαι. P. 196. B. H. 27. n. ii. p. 102. C. D. f Carpocrates prætereâ hanc tulit sectam. Unam esse dicit virtutem in superioribus principalem: ex hac prolatos angelos, atque virtutes: quos distantes longe a superioribus vir tutibus mundum istum in inferioribus partibus condidisse. De Pr. cap. 48. p. 252. A. 216. 7 Fran. Jesum autem e Joseph natum, et, cum similis reliquis hominibus fuerit, distâsse a reliquis secundum id, quod anima ejus firma et munda cum esset, commemorata fuerit quæ visa essent sibi in eâ circumlatione, quæ fuisset ingenito Deo ; et propter hoc ab eo missam esse ei virtutem, uti mundi fabricatores effugere posset, et-ascenderet ad eum : et eas, qui similia ei amplecterentur, similiter. Jesu autem dicunt animam in Judæorum consuetudine nutritam contemsisse ecs, et propter hoc virtutes accepisse, per quas evacuavit quæ fuerunt in pœnis passiones, quæ inerant hominibus. Ibid. p. 203. * Ιησεν δε τον κύριον ήμαν από Ιωσήφ λέγει γεγενησθαι, καθαπερ και παντες ανθρωποι εκ σπέρματος ανδρος και γυναικός, Βιῳ δε διενηνεχεκαι, σωφροσυνη τε και αρετη και βσω δια καιοσυνης. Επειδη δε, φησιν, ευτονον είχε ψυχήν παρα της άλλες ανθρωπος, κ. λ. H. 27. n. ii. p. 102. D. 1 Αρείη δε αυτον διαπρέψαι, και καθαραν εσχηκοτα ψυχήν, και μεμνημένην της μετά το αγεννητο διαγωγής. ρ. 196. Β. |