they deified. These are advanced in the broadest manner in the extracts from him given by Clement. He maintained that all laws for the security of private property were in violation of the universal law of God, which had given all things in common to all; and that they alone created the offences which they punished.* This indeed may be considered as little more than a speculative principle, since society imposes such severe penalties on those who act in conformity to it, that none are likely to reduce it to practice from a mere conviction of its truth. But his doctrine respecting the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, which not only broke down all moral restraint, bu represented it as an ordinance of God, is suffi cient, especially when we consider the stat of society in which it was promulgated, to re move any doubt concerning the truth of the licentiousness of which the Carpocratians wer accused. They were heathen philosophers and Christian chastity was not to be learne from heathen philosophy. They were, as w have supposed, of the school of Plato, and i

* Οι νόμοι — παρανομεῖν ἐδίδαξαν. Ἡ γὰρ ἰδίοτης τῶν νόμων τὴν και νίαν τοῦ θείου νόμου κατέτεμεν καὶ παρατρῶγει. — Τό τ' ἐμὸν καὶ τὸ ο φησὶ, διὰ τῶν νόμων παρεισελθεῖν. — Ἡ δὲ κοινωνία παρανομηθεῖσα, καὶ τῆς ἰσότητος, ἐγέννησε θρεμμάτων καὶ καρπῶν κλέπτην. pp. 512, 513.

two of his most noted Dialogues they might have found a mixture of philosophical jargon with nameless impurity.* Nor is there any reason to question what Irenæus says of them,† that they, like the later Platonists, professed the science and practice of magic or theurgy, and used their pretended skill for the purpose of deception.

I HAVE reserved for a separate head the mention of one doctrine which Irenæus imputes to them; because, so far as it may appear to have been held by any individuals, it connects them in a class with other pseudo-Christians, maintaining that the practice of scandalous immoralities was a religious duty. As followers of Plato, the Carpocratians believed the doctrine of the preëxistence and transmigration of souls; and maintained, says Irenæus, that the soul would not obtain its final liberation from matter till it had been conversant with every kind of life and every mode of action; that is, as he explains their meaning, till it had been conversant with every kind of impurity and

I refer to the Phædrus and the Banquet, "amatoria colloquia καὶ παιδεραστικά."

Cont. Hæres. Lib. I. c. 25. § 3. p. 103. Lib. II. c. 31. § 2. p. 164. c. 32. § 3. p. 165.

vice.* A strong doubt may at once arise whether such a doctrine could have been professed by any individuals; and the idea of acting upon it, to its full extent, appears altogether monstrous and incredible. Irenæus himself says, that he could not believe that their practice corresponded to their principles. What, indeed, were the principles or the practice of certain libertine individuals of the second century, called Carpocratians, whether they were more immoral than some have supposed, or less immoral than their opponents represented, is a subject that may seem wholly uninteresting at the present day. Certainly it is so, as far as justice to their memory is concerned. But, on the other hand, if they held the doctrine imputed to them by Irenæus, or if they held any doctrine which, without being greatly misrep resented, might afford occasion for the state ment which he makes, this is a phenomenon i human nature that may well deserve attention

That they did hold some doctrine of thi kind, and that he did not essentially mistak their meaning, may appear from various con siderations. Irenæus affirms, that it was ex pressed in their writings; and that they taugh

* Lib. I. c. 25. § 4. pp. 103, 104. Lib. II. c. 32. § 2. p. 165.

that Jesus had communicated it privately to his Apostles and disciples, and had appointed them to communicate it to those who were worthy and obedient. They would not have maintained that a doctrine concerning morals had been taught privately, if it had been such as was correspondent to the tenor of the Gospels. He says, that they accommodated to their doctrine the words of our Saviour, "Agree with thine adversary quickly; " representing the adversary as Satan, one of the angels of the world, who would not suffer the soul to obtain its freedom from imprisonment in some mortal body, till it had paid the uttermost farthing; that is, according to his explanation, till it had been conversant in all the works of this world. His appeal to their writings, and the particulars which he gives relating to their doctrine, serve to show, that, if his account is not true to the letter, it still had an essential foundation in truth. It is repeated by other writers, particularly by Tertullian, who says,* that they represented" crimes as the tribute which life must pay"; facinora tributa sunt vita; and notes the same perversion of Scripture that is mentioned by Irenæus.

* De Animâ, c. 35. p. 291.

The doctrine in question, stated in its least offensive form, we may, perhaps, conceive to have been, that the soul must have full experience of this life before passing into another state, and that to this end it must be conversant with pleasures commonly considered criminal. To represent indulgence in such pleasures as a matter of religious obligation, was conformable to the teaching of Epiphanes, that promiscuous intercourse of the sexes was an ordinance of God. Irenæus concludes his account of the moral principles of the Carpocratians with saying, that they taught, that men were "saved by faith and love, but that other things were indifferent; that, according to the opinions of men, some were accounted good and others bad, but that nothing was bad by nature."* By faith they may have meant a firm adherence to their philosophy; for to souls purified by philosophy Plato assigned the highest places after death. But in what they said of faith and love we may recognise, perhaps, a common tendency of those most licentious in their speculations or their practice to shelte themselves under a show of words expressiv of common sentiments or belief.

* Lib. I. c. 25. § 5. p. 104.