Simon magus (Hastings' Dictionary)

The name usually given for the sake of distinction to that Simon who is men- tioned in only one place in the NT, but to whom, both in Patristic literature and in modern criticism, the part assigned is very considerable. There are some features in the story of the NT which e.xcite our curiosity ; the early Fathers have detailed ai:counts of liis false te.

iching, and give him the doubtful honour of being the first of the heresi- arclis, the source and spring of all later heresy ; early Christian romance writers embellished his history Mith many wonderful details, and made him the antagonist of Simon Peter, both in verbal disputations and in the e.

\hibition of magical arts ; while a school of modern critics has found in his career and the stories concerning him the chief support for a far-reaching reconstruction of our conceptions of early Christianity.

In order to obtain a sound basis for our investigations, it will be useful after examining the account in the NT to go carefully tlirough the Patristic evidence in chronological order, and after that consider the fuller narratives of uncertain date contained in tlie Clementine literature and Apocryphal Acts.

"We shall thus be in a better position to estimate the force and value of modem criticism, and be able to otl'er a probable explanation of the various ditliculties that the problem presents. i. Simon in the New Testament, ii. Simon in Patristic literature Co A.D. 400. iii. Tlie Clementine literature and Apocr^'phal Aet8. iv. Modern critical views. V. The growth of the lepend. vi. The affinities of Simon's system, vii. Simon Magus and simony. viii. Simon Magus and the Fauat legend. Literature.

i. Simon in the NT. — In Ac 8»-", where the preaching of Philip in Samaria is described, we are told that ' there was a certain man called Simon, which beforetime in the city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one ' (\4yui' dial nya iavTiv fiiyav). All tlie people followed him, and described him as ' tliat power of Gpd which is called great' (oCiris i(7nv j) Svv»iui toD SeoD ^ itaXou- IxivTi ixeydXr]).

When the rest of the city was con- verted, Simon also believed and was baptized, and continued with Philip, amazed at his miracles. When Peter and John came down, they laid hands on the converts, wlio received the floly Ghost. Simon then ollered Peter money, saying, 'Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.' Peter sternly re- buked him. 'Thy money perish with thee . . thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter . .

thou art in the gall of bitterness, and the bond of iniquity.' Simon entreated him to pray the Lord that none of those things might come upon him. It will be more convenient to postpone comments on tliis passage until we have collected further in- formation on the subject. ii. Patristic Evidence.— The earliest informa- tion outside the NT comes from Jtistin Martyr, c. 150 (Apul. i. 26, 56 [cf. Eus. HE ii. 13. 14] ; Dial. 120). He tells us that Simon was a Samaritan, of the vill.

age of Gitta ; he came to Rome in the time of Claudius C;esar ; by the power of the demons he worked miracles, and was honoured in Rome as a god, so that a statue was erected in his honour by order of the Senate and people, between the two bridges, bearing the inscription SIMONI DEO S.-VNCTO. Almost all the Samaritans and a few of other nations honour him as the first god (xpiro! peos).

He took about with him a woman called Helena, who had formerly be'»n a prostitute, and whom he is said to have called the first conception [trpJini Ivfota) which came forth from him. He ia described as God above ' all rule and authority and f)ower.' We also gather that Justin looked upon lim as the originator of heresy and the source whence all later heresies were derived. As regards one part of this story an interesting discovery has been made.

In the year 1574 tliere was dug up in the place indicated by Justin, namely, in the island of the Tiber, a marble frag- ment, apparently the base of a statue, with the inscription SE^fONI SANCO DEO FIDIO. It is now generally agreed that Justin mistook a statue dedicated to a Sabine deity for one dedi- cated to Simon (Gruter, l7isc. Ant. i. p. 95, n. 5), although whether the mistake was his own or was earlier than himself we cannot say.

But nothing in this mistake need invalidate his testimony about Simon in Samaria. J ustin himself was a Samaritan ; he draws attention at least once {Dial. 120 ; cf. Apol. ii. 15) to the fact that he nad spoken the truth to his own disadvantage. On the subject of the sect which called itself after the name of Simon he must he taken as first-hand evidence. And there are strong grounds for thinking that we have a fuller account which emanates from him.

Accounts of Simon Magus are contained in the following heresiological works : Iren:i'us (I. xvi.), pseudo-TertuUian (i. ), Hippolytus (Refutatio, vi.), PhUaster (29), Epiphanins {Panarion, 21). Of these, that in Hippoljtus' Ecfutatio consists of two parts ; that from § 7 to § 18, containing extracts from a work called ^ iiey6.

\ri dTro^oiris, ' the Great Revelation,' presents a ditl'erent system from that found elsewhere, and will be noticed further on ; that in § 19 and § 20 is derived from the same source from which the greater part of the matter in all the other heresiologists comes. It is now gener- ally agreed, and probably on good grounds, that this common source was a treatise (uivTayfia.) on heresies written by Justin and referred to by him- self (Apol. i. 26).

The following is the account put together from these different sources : — Simon was said to have taught that he was the highest God, the most elevated virtue {rr,v irlp fravTat HvotLut,). He carried about with him Helena, who he said was the first conception of his mind, the mother of all, by whom he con- ceived in his mind to create the angels and archan|,'els. She was also called Wisdom (a-o^ix), according to pseudo-Tertullian, and Holy Spirit and Prunicus (<rfoi«.

««), according to Epi- phanius. She, knowing her father's wish, leapt forth from hira and created the angels and powers by whom tliis world and man were created. She was unable to return to her father because of the envy and desire of those whom she had created, and suffered contumely, and waa compelled to assume human form. She passed through the centuries, as it were, from one vessel to another, transmigrating from one female form to another.

She was the Helen about whom the Trojan war WM foui^ht; the wooden horse representing the ignorance of the nations. After that she passed from form to form, and lajitly became a prostitute in a brothel at Tyre : she was the lost sheep. But since the rulers of the world ruled it ill, and in order to redeem her, the Supreme Power descended to the lower world.

He passed through the regions ruled by the principalities and powers, in each region making himself like to those in it, and so among men he appeared as a man. He appeared among the Jews as the Son, in Samaria as the Father, in other nations as the Holy Spirit. In Judiea he had seemed to suffer, but ha<I not. lie allawed himself to be railed by whatsoever names men liked. He thus succeeded in saving Helena, as she expected.

He brought man to a knowledge of himself, and liberated the world and those who were his from the rule of those who had made the world. The Jewish pro- phecies, he said, were mspired by the anijels who made the world. Therefore those who had hope in him and Helena need no longer care for them, but might freely do as they would, for men were saved according to his pnw^e and not according to good works.

There was no real dilference between good and bad, they were merely accidental distinctions made by the creators of the worid. The morality of the sect was, we or« told, in accordance with these principles. Their priests (mjjKlyd mcerdotet) lived lascivious lives, used magic and incantations, made philtres, had tamili.ir spirits, and had images of Simon and Helena made in the form of Zeus and Athena. Hef/csippus (c. 180), in a corrupt passage quoted by Eus. IV.

22, speaks of Simon, from whom (*ma SIMON MAGUS SIMON MAGUS 521 the Simoniaiis ; Cleobius, whence the Cleobians ; aii'i llositheus, wlience the Dositheans ; and Gor- thii'us, whence the Gortlieni ; and Masbotheus, whence the Masbotlieans — from these, he says, came tlie followers of Menander; and lie then enu- merates the later heretics. It would be interesting; to know if this heretical genealogy is independent of Justin. TcrtiU/ian (c. 200) does not seem to have any original information.

He knows the story al)out the statue (Apol. 13). He gives a long account of Simon's system.derived apparently from Irena'us((i'e Aninia, 34). He siij's that even in his own day the presumption of the sect of Simon is so great that they even presume to raise the souls of the prophets from the lower regions (Ecce kodie eUisdem Simunii hiercticos tanta preiuinjitio artis extollit, ut eCiam pruphctarum animas ab in/erii- movere se spon- deant). Clement of Alexandria (c.

200) gives us little information about Simon. There is a chronological remark in Strom, vii. 17 which is quite inexplicable, and in .Strom, ii. 11 he tells us that the followers of Simon \vi.sh to be made like the ' Standing One ' whom they worship. In Ilippolytus (Rcfutatio, vi. 7-18) (r. 230 A.D.) extracts are given from a work which evidently described a somewhat dill'erent system, and was called ' the Great Revelation.'

The first principle, according to this, is called kvipat^^ot dC«cu4E, it is lire or silence ; tiie fire is of two sorts. ^»i^o» anrl Kfii/trit, that which is hidden Iteing tlie secret principle which causes that which is open. The world Is derived from the unborn tire (>'i»>rTo; if kyi^^ritrnj) ; first came six roots in pairs, male and female, viz. ^aZi and i-r.>«ix, ^»»i and i^ofjM,^ XoytruM and ivt/iiirff-'f.

Corresponding to these are six visible or realized counterparts cvpaoo; and >r, ^Xiof and ff-iAr,,:, «<'.> and Ccvp. A larpe part of the work is devoted to provinfj the system by an allegorical use of the OT, but it is interesting to notice tliat there are elements derived from Aristotle, especi- ally the distinction which nms through the whole of SC^afxtt and itipynx. Simon calls himself i i<nui, i rrecg^ i ^Tr^auiyflf, impljing his pre-existence and his immortality.

A abort ex- tract wiil be sullicient to show the character of the book : * To vou then 1 say what I say, and I write what I write. The writ- ing is this. There arc two ofTshoote of the complete .^^.

ons, having neither begiiming nor end, from one root, which is the Invisible, incumprt-hensible power silence, of which the one is manifested from above, which is the great power, the intellect of the universe, that administers all things, the male principle ; but tlie other is from below, vast thought, tlie female principle, generative of all things.

Whence corresponding to one another tliey funn a pair (rv^vy tec), and they reveal the iiiiddle space as an atmosphere wliich cannot be comprehended, having neither beginning nor end. But in this is the father who hears and nniirinhes all things that have beginning and end.

This is he who sto(Mi, who standeth, who will stiind, being a bisexual |x»wer, the reflex of the pre-existent, unlimited power which nath neither beginning nor end, being in solitude ; for trom this the thought wliich pre-existed in solitude came forth and became twain.* Besides the extracts from this hook, Hippolytus also tells us (vi. 20) that Simon went .-is far as Koine, where ho seduced many by his magical arts, but was opposed by Peter.

This is the earliest refer- ence to a contest with St. Peter at Rome, unless the notice in I'hilaster (see below) was derived from the earlier treatise of Hippolytus, in wliich case it would belong to the close of the 2nd cent. Hippolytus goes on to give an account of his death, diltcicnt from any that we have in other sources. At the end of his life Simon stated that if he were buried alive he would rise on the third day. He ordered his disciples to dig a grave and to bury him.

They did as they were ordered, ' but ho remained away even to tlie present day. For he was not the Christ.* (h-iijoi (c. 249 A.D.), in the contra Celsum, v. 62, tells us that Celsus, enumerating all the Christian heretics, speaks of Simonians who, worshippiii'; Helena, or a teacher Helenus, are called Ileleniani. Origen points out that Celsus has omitted to notice that the Simonians never confess Jesus as the Son 01 (lod, but say that Simon is the power of God. In vi.

11 Driven points out that Simon has nc followers, and Dositheus not more than thirty, lie adds that this is all the more marvellous, aa Simon had taken away for his disciples the danger of death, saying that to sacritice to idols was a matter of indillerence. In the same work (i. 57) we are told that Simon has not thirty followers, or that that is an e.\.iggerated number. Commodian (c. 2.")U), in Cnrm. apol, p.

613, speak- ing of beasts which have had the power of speech by the power of God, tells ns of the dog which St. Peter made to speak to Simon. This story is found in the Apocryphal Acts. The author of the treatise de Itebaptitmate, ch. 16 (c. 2U0 A.D.), tells us of followers of Simon who make tire appear in the water when they baptize. In the Si/riac Didascalia (end of 3rd cent.), vi. 8 and 9 (Lagarde, Syriac text, and in Bunsen, Ana- lectn Antenirtena, ii. p.

325), we have a reference to Simon and Cleobius and others of his followers, and an account of the linal destruction of Siinon in the contest with Peter at Rome. As this work is almost inaccessible, and its evidence is import- ant, the following extracts are given in full : — Syriac. p. 100, I. 18 (Concerning Simon the sorcerer). For the beginning of heresies was on this wise. Satan clothed him- self with .Simon, a man who was a sorcerer, and of old time was his servant.

And when we, by the gift of the Lord our God, and by the power of the Holy Spirit, were doing powers of lieal- ing in Jerusalem, and by means of the laying on of hands, the coiumuniejition of the Holy Spirit was given to those who presented themselves, then he brought to us much silver, and desired that, as he had deprived Adam of the knowledge of life bv the eating of the tree, so also he might deprive us of the pift of God by the gift of silver, and might seize our uniierstand- ings by the gift of riches, in order that we might give to him in exchange for silver the power of the Holy Spirit.

And we were all trouDled about this. Then Peter looked at Satan, who was dwelhng in Simon, and said to him, "Thy silver shall go with thee to destruction, and thou shaJt not have part m this matter." P. 101 (Concerning false apostles). But when we divided t« the twelve parts for all the world, and went forth among the Gentiles in all the world, to preach the word, then Satan wrought and disturbed the people to send after us fal.se apo.stles for the refutation of the word.

And he sent out from the people one whose name was Cleobius, and joined him to Simon, and also others after them. They of the house of Simon followed me, Peter, and came to corrupt the word. \iid when he was in Uonie he disturbed the Church [much], and turned away many. And showed himself as though Hying. And lie laid hold of the Gentiles, terrifying them by the power of the working of his sorceries. And in one of the days I went and saw liiiii Hying in the air.

Then I rose up and said, " By the power of the name of Jesus I cut away thy powers." And he fell, and the ankle of his foot was broken. And then many tunied away from him. But others who were worthy of him clave to him. And thus first was established and became that heresy of his. And also by means of other false apostles,' etc". (Brackets as io Syriac text). Amohius (c. 310, contra Gentcs, ii. 12) knows of the story of the contest of Simon and I'eter at Rome.

' For they had seen,' he says, ' the chariot of Simon M.agus and the four flaming horses scattered by the inouth of Peter, and di.sapneiiring at the name of Christ.' He had been hurled down, and his legs broken ; then, taken to IJninda, worn out with tortures and with shame, he had again thrown himself down from a lofty siimmit. Eu.irhius (c. 324 A.D., IIE ii. 13. 14) gives on account of Siinon drawn from Justin Martyr and Irena'us, and embellished with somewhat strong vitujierativo langua''e.

He then goes on to refer to a contest with Peter, first in Juda>a, then in Rome. •Forthwith,* he says, 'the above-mentioned impostor was smitten in the eyes of his mind by a Divine and wonderful light, and when "flrst he had been convicted in Judiea by llie Apostle Peter of the evil deeds he \\vkA committed, he departed ill (light on a great Journey over the sea from the lOiust u> the West, thinking in this way only he would be able to live as be wished.

* Ue tells us that he come to Homo, was assisted there • The writer is indebted for these extracts to the Rev. W. C Allen of Kxeter College, Oxford, who Is engaged on a translation of the Syriac. The passage is also contoiueu in the \auu Frag nient, x'xxii. 522 SIMOX MAGUS SIMON MAGUS by the devil, obtained freat influence, and waa honoured by a Btatue. But during; the rei;^ of Claudius, Peter himself name there.

*And when the Divine word thus made its dwellinff there, the power of Simoa and the man himself were immedi- ately quenched.' Eusebius and the author of the Syriac Didaar.alia quoted above are tlie lirst writers who speak of both a contest in Judiea and also one in Home ; but there does not seem to be any reason for thinking that either of them had any other source for the former tlian the Acts of the Apostles.

We do not know Eusebius' source for the overthrow of Simon by Peter, and his Kaiigua^e is curiously ambiguous. Probably he is giving tne common story, drawn from mere apocryphal writing, the wortldessuoss of which he knows quite well. This makes him avoid botli a quotation and direct details. Cyril of Jerus.ilem (c. 347, Cat. vi. 14, 15) gives an account based upon the Acts and Justin. He also gives an account of the destruction of Simon ■when he attempted to fly.

It is interesting, as we shall see, to notice that he ascribes the final catastrophe to the joint agency of Peter and Paul, showing that he possessed a story which contained the names of them both. The work de excidio Hierosolym. iii. 2 (A.D. 368), ascribed to Hegesippus, but probably by Ambrose, gives an account of a contest at Rome of Peter and Paul with Simon. It narrates a con.siderable number of incidents contained in the Latin Acts. Philaster (c. 380 A.D.)

, in his account of heresies {fftnr. xxix.), knows of the contest at Rome with Peter before Nero. He tells tis that Simon fled from .Jerusalem to escape Peter, and came to Rome, and then narrates the contest. If this came from his source, the early treatise of Hippolylus, it would throw the evidence for it into the 2nd cent. ; but as it is absent in the parallel passage of Epiphanius, and as Hippolytus in liis later treatise knows the story in anotlier form, it is not prob- able that it did.

Jerome {in Matt. 24') (387 A.D.) tells us that Simon said, ' Ego sum sernio Dei, ego sum spe- ciosus, ego paracletus, ego omnipotens, ego omnia Dei.' Tlie Apostolic Constitutions, which date from Antioch about the year 400, give the legend of Simon Magus in what we may call its complete form (vi. 7-9) — The source of all heresy is Simon of Gitta. First of all, the story in the Acts is given. Then comes an account of all the false teachers who went forth into the world.

Then of the contest between Simon and Peter at Caisarea, where the companions of Peter were Zaccheous the publi(^n, and Barnabas, and Nicetas and Aquila, brothers of Clement, 'bishop and citizen of Home, who ha<i been the disciple of Paul and co-apostle and helper in the gospel.' They discoursed for three days con- cernin;; prophecy and the unity of the Godliead. Then Simon, bein;; defeated, fled into Italy.

Then comes an account of the contest at Rome of the same character aa we shall come across shortly in the Apocrj-phal Acts. This account is very much fuller than the narra- tive contained in the Syriac Didascalia, A\Titten probably rather more than a century earlier, and seems to imply a considerable grov/th of the legend. As will shortly be seen, it implies a knowledge of the Clementine literature in some form, and of the Apocryphal Acts.

In reviewing this catena of passages certain points become clear. During the 2nd cent, all the information, as far as we know, that existed about Simon, is derived from the Acts of the Apostles and the writings of Justin. Tliere seems to be no knowledge of the contest with Peter at Rome, although Justin believed that Simon had visited Rome.

In the 3rd cent, we begin to get an account of the contest with Peter, which we lind in Hippolytns, Commodian, the authors of the Syriac Didascidin, and Auielius. Eusebius and the Did- ascalia con\.«k\ji this legend, with an account of a contest in Palestine, but do not imply anjahing beyond the narrative of the Acts of the Apo.stles ; Cyril's account seems of much the same character.

It is not until Ave reach the close of the 4th cent, that we find in the Apostolic Constitutions what we may call the completed legend, combining tha stories which, as we shall see, are derived from the Clementine liteiature with those derived from the Apocryphal Acts and the narrative in the Acta of the Apostles. The contrast between the earlier Didascalia and the later Constitutions is from this point of view most instructive. We are now in a position to study the fuller legends. iii.

The Clementine Literatuke and Apoc- ryphal Acts.— (a) Tub Clementine Homilies AND liECOGNITIONS. — These are two forms of what appear to be an early Cliristian romance, containing the story of the wanderings of Clement in search of truth, the preaching and missionary journeys of Peter, his contest with Simon Magus, and the re- union of Clement with the lost members of bis family — his father, mother, and two brothers.

The Becognitiom we possess only in a translation made by Ruiinus about tlie year 400 ; the Homilies con- tain a somewhat difl'ertnt form of the same story in Greek. There are also a Syriac version and later epitomes which need not trouble us. Neither the Recognitions nor the Homilies contain the story in its original form, both presenting later features ; and there is no acceptetl opinion concerning the date or the sources of the booK.

But the completed work must belong to a time when the controversy with Marcion's teaching and the preservation of the Divine fiovapxta were of interest in the Church, i.e. to the early part of the 3rd cent. ; and some of the sources may be earlier. The earliest quotations come from Origen (c. 230). The work is clearly not orthodox in doctrine, but presents Ebionite features tinged with the Gnosticism it combats.

We will give the account contained in the Homilies, stating at the conclusion tlie main ditterences in the narrative of the Recognitions. The Homilies begin with an account of Clement, of his early religious impulses, of the desire that he had to hear of the new prophet, and of his meeting with Peter at Casarea in Palestine. He finds that Peter is, on the next day, to dispute with a certain Simon of Oitta (Bk. i.)

The history of Simon is then related by Aquila and Nicetas, who had formerly been his pupils. His father's name was Antonius, his mother's, Rachel. He was a Samaritan of the village of Gitta or Gitths, six miles from Samaria. lie was educated at Alexandria, and sliilled in the wisdom of the Greeks and in magic. He wishes to be con- sidered the highest virtue (iva/TotTTi rtt Kteifi-ii), higher than the Creatorof the world.

He calls himself the Standing One («'E<rTfl^), as signifying that he will always be firmly established (alf iy. rirtri- fAitos ii<)i and having no cause of corruption in him. The Creator of the world is not the highest God. nor will the dead 1>€ raised. He denies Jerusalem and substitutes Mt. Geriziin. He puts himself in the place of Christ. He perverts the Law bv his own interpretation of it. He was the chief of the disciples of John the Hemerobaptist.

As our Lord had 12 apostles symbolizing the 12 months of the year, so John had 30, of whom one was a woman named Helena, thus symbolizing the 29^ days in a month. The death of John occurred during the absence of Simon in Alexandria, and Dositheus succeeded to his place. Simon, on his return, desiring the headship, pre- tended to be a disciple, and then accused Dositheus of not deUvering the teaching correctly.

Dositheus then attempted to beat him with a rod, whereupon Simon became a cloud of smoke. Dositheus, knowing that he was not himself the 'Standing One,' said, 'If you are the Standing One, I will worship vou.' Simon claims that he is, becomes head of the sect, and Dositheus shortly afterwards dies. Simon, taking Helena with him, goes about disturMng the people. Helena, he says, had come down from the highest heavens ; was mistress (xtipixv), the All-mother, and Wisdom (Txuu.r, ■iifux.

aviniti xtx.', <rof <'aO: for her sake the Greeks and barbarians fought, having tonned an image of the truth, for she was really then with the highest God. To aid him in his magical arts, he had killed a boy, and separated the soul from his l)ody, and made an image which he kept concealed in an inner room by which he divined. A description is given of his miracles. He made statues walk He appears wrapped in Are without being burnt. He is able to fly, to make bread out of stones.

He becomes a serpent or a goat. He shows two faces. He can open and shut doors. He makes vessels In his house which wait upon him, without its appearing how thev are moved (Bk. U.)

After some dels}', during which Peter has explained Jia SIMON MAGUS SIMOX MAGUS 523 mystical meanin;: of Scripture, the disputea between him and Siiiion take place ; Simon imdertakinp to prove from the bcriptunrf that there is more thiui one Uod, and that he whom Peter colled God U not the hi^^hejit God, fur be is without foresight, imperfect, inojraplete, and exposed to every form of human passion (iii. 38). The disputations last three days.

On the fourth day it vfoa found that Sinion had Hcd bjr nifcht to Tyre, and was there deceiving the people by his magic (hi. 68). Clement, Nicetas, and Aquila are sent on to Tyre, and Simon flees to Sidon, leaving some of his disciples (iv. 6), who, at T>'re, discuss with Clement the Greek fables concerning the gods iBks. iv. -vi.) Peter comes to Tyre and Sidon, when bimon goes on to Berytua. Peter follows hini, and after a elight altercation Simon goes to Tripolls. Peter again follows (Bk.

vii.) him, and Simon flees into Syria. At Tripolis Peter remains a long time. Tliere Clement is baptizctl, and then they go on towards Antioch in Syria by Orthosia and Antoradus (viii.-xi.X Then comes the story of Clement's family (xii.-xv.), and they go on by Batanis, Paltus and Gabala to* Laodicea. To Laomcea comes Simon from Antioch, and a long dispute takes place between him and Peter concerning the unity of the Godhead and the existence of evil (x%i.-xix.)

Then Kaustus, the newly-<li3Covered father of Clement, goes to see Simon. Simon by his magical arts succeeds in making the face of Faustus like his own, and then departs to Antioch, where he accuses Peter of being a magician. C'jmelius the centurion has been ordered by the emperor to arrest all ma^cians. It is for this reason that Simon has changed the tacc of Faustus, and he escapes to Judma.

Faustus then goes Co Antioch, and uses the appearance which Simon has given him to destro3' the latter's inlluence. The people think that be is Simon. In Simon's name he recants, confesses his deceit and imp wturos, and Peter is sent lor to come to Antioch. The main differences which concern us in the Recuijnition are as follow : Xothing is said about Simon being a pupil of John. Helena is called Luna (ran*;).

Simon says that Itachel was not really his mother, but that he had previously been conceived by a virgin. The main difference in the hook is one of order : instead of two disputes between Peter and Simon — one at CiBsarea, the other at Laodicea — we have one dispute at Ciesarea, and there most of the matters discussed in the llomi- lies at Laodicea are placed by this editor (ii. 19-72, iii. 12-48). Reference is made (in.

t>3) to Simon having said that he would 1^ to Uome, and that there he would be looked on as a (<;od and honoured with statues, and in iii. 64 it is said that he had been there. The voyage along the Syrian coast-line is treated very shortly, in iv,-vi, we have discourses of Peter, in vii.-ix. the story of Clement. Then at the end of x. Simon comes on the stage again, we have the same story as at the close of the Uuinilies, only that the father of Clement is c^ed, not Faustus but Faustinianus.

It will be noticed th\t this work seems to fall very easily into separate elements. Bks. i. and vii.-x. 51 are concerned with the story of Clement. Bks. ii. and iii. with tlie story of the contest of Simon and Peter. Bks. iv.-vi. with sermons of Peter. Bk. X. 52 ff. contains the concluding story concerning Simon, which hardly fits in with this version of the hist^>ry.

The journey along the Ph'iinician coast is very much attenuated, and there are suggestionstliat originally Simon wentstraight to Rome after the contest at Cauuarea. (b) The LEtiESDARY Acts of St. Peter and St. Paul. — The story of Simon in these Acts diifers from that in the Clementine literature. Both alike are concerned with contests between Simon Magus and Simon Peter ; but while the latter place the scene of tlie contest in Syria, the Arts place it in Rome.

The le;::cnds appear in two forms: the one is that contained in the Actus Petri cum Sirnone, a document of Gnostic origin, believed to ha%'e belonged to the collection known as Leucian ; the other is the Arts of Peter and Paul {vpa^ct.% Tuiv ayiuiv diro<TT6\wv llirpov xal IlavXov). (1) According to the Actus Petri cum Simone, after St.

Paul had left Home, a stir arose in that city, about a man called •*iinoii, who was at Aricia, who had worked many miracles, and said he was the great power (inagnam m'rtw/em) of (Jod, and without God did nothing. Ue receives a summons : 'Tliou art ill Italy God, thou art the saviour of the Romans; hasten quickly to Rome.' He promises to come the next day at the •eventh hour, flying through the air at the city gate.

At the apiwintcd time smoke is seen approaching, and suddenly Simon aiijtears tn the midst. The brethren arc in a state of great con8t«rnation because Paul is away, and they are left without any to comfort them, and the gi-cater nimiber tall away. Mean- while the twelve years of Pet<.'r"8 s'>J..urn in Jerus;dem are fuinUed, and Christ bids him go to Rome, for Simon, whom he had driven out of Judma, had antiiipated him there. Wo may pass over the account of Peter's voyage and arrival in Rome.

He flnds Simon living in the house of Man:elhis, a Roman senator of great phiUnthropy, whom he hod ^lerverled by his magic. When Peter hears" of the manner m which Marrelliis has been deceived, he begins an attack on Simrm, dewribing him as a * ravening wolf, stealing the sheep which are not his." It was he who inspired Judas to betmy Christ, uul hardtued the heart of Uerod and Caiaphas. He then goes to the house of Simon. Being refused admittance, he looses a dog and bids him carr>" a message.

The dog goes in, raises his forefeet, and in a loud voice bids Simon come forth Marcellus at once recognizes his sin, and, going out, falls at Peter's feet and asks pardon. He explains how he had beei persuaded to erect a statue SIMONI IVVeNI DEO : *To Simon, the youthful god." Further conversations of Simon and of Peter with tlie dog follow ; then it, having: fulfilled its mission, dies.

Peter then turns a dead sardine into a hve flsh, and Marcellus, overpowered by these miracles, with the help of his servant turns Simon out of his bouse. Simon then goes to Peter's home. Peter sends him a message by means of an infant seven months old, who speaks and bids him leave Rome, and keep silence until the following Sabbath. Peter then narrates the story of how he bad rescued a woman named Eubola from Simon in Palestine.

Further mir- aoles and discourses of Peter are narrated, and the night before the contest is spent in prayer and fasting. On the day of the contest all Rome comes togetlier, the senators, the prefect, and the officers. First comes a verbal disputation, and in the speech of Peter we notice apparently a Gnostic tendency. The contest begins by Simon making a young man die by his word. An interruption occurs. A woman rushes in saying that her son is dead, and some young men are sent to fetch him.

Peter then raises the young man whom Simon had put to death, a favourite of the emperor, and the son of the widow who had been brought to him. Again, the mother of a certain senator, Nicostrates, osks Peter to heal her son. The dead body is brought. Peter challenges Simon to raise it. Simon makes it seem to move, but Peter really raises it. Ail the people then follow Peter. Simon still tries to deceive the people by pretended miracles, but Peter exposes him.

As no one believes him, he explains that he is going to God : 'ilen of Home, do you think that Peter has shown himself stronger than me, and has overcome me? And do you follow him ? You are deceived. To-morrow, leaving you impious and godless men, I will fly to Ood, whose power I am, having been weakened.

II, then, you have fallen, I am he that standeth (o 'Eirra^), and I go to the Father, and will say to him, "Me, the Standing One, thy son, they wished to overthrow; but ha\ing refused to agree with them, I have come to thyself."* The people come together to see him fly. He appears flying over Home. Peter prays, and he falls down, having his leg broken in three places. The people stone him, and all follow Peter. Simon is taken to Ancia, and then to Terracina, where he dies.

(2) The Acta Petri et Pauli occur in two forms, the Ma^- rCptof riv kyiaiv a.TofToka/f lliTp^u Kcci IIcc^^Xal' and the Tpa^ui t« iy;r» «!rflffTc;<AFi' UiTfou Mai tlxCXcv, but the variations betw-een them do not affect the story of Simon. The main point of dillerence between this story and that which we have just narrated is that St. Paul is here made the companion of St. Peter instead of being represented as having left Uome.

Owing to the success of the preaching of Peter and Paul, the Jews and priests stir up Simon o^^ainst Peter. Simon is sum- moned before Nero, and by his miracles convinces Nero of the truth of his claims to be Son of God, and Nero orders Peter and Paul to be brought before him. The contest is first one of words, in which St. Peter quotes a letter of Pontius Pilate about our Lord, then it passes into miracles. Each challenges the other to say what is in their thoughts.

Peter blesses and breaks a loaf of bread, and has it prepared to give to the dogs which Simon sends against him to devour him, thus disclosing that he knew what waa in Simon's thoughts. Simon then demands that a lofty tower should be erecteii. Nero remem- bers how once Simon liatl appeared to raise hiniself from the dead after he had been killed three d.iys, and still expects his victory.

This Simon ha<l done by making the executioner who had been sent to execute him cut otf the head of a ram instead of his own. At this point tliere is inserted a conversa- tion between Nero and Paul, and then a dispute on the subject of circumcision. Then comes the final test. While Paul prays, it is the part of Peter to oppose Simon. Simon sturtj* flying.

Peter then says, * I adjure you, angels of Satan, who bear hint to the air to deceive the hearts of the unbelie\ers, by God the creator of all, and Jesus Christ, whom on this liay He raised from the dead, from this hour no longer bear him, but let him go.' He then falls and dies. Nero puts Peter and Paul in prison, but keeps the body of Simon to see if it will rise on the third day. It will be noticed in this narrative that the part played by St. Paul is clearly subordinate.

His name and his action mi^hC really be omitted without serious injury to the narrative. This suggests that very probably the story in its original form came from a source sinntar to the Actus Petri cum iiiimone. In which St. Paul is entirely absent. iv. Modern critical Views.— We have now gone sutViciently minutely tlirough all the v.

-irioua vicissitudes which the legends about Simon Miigus experienced during the early centuries, and can l)as8 to some equally curious devolopmeuta of modern criticism. Tliere is no doubt that the Clementine litera- ture is to some extent Ebionite in character, and might naturally contain anti-Pauline teach- ing. Starting from this point of view, Uaur tii*- covered certain passages in which Simon rcpre 524 SIMON MAGUS SIMON MAGUS sented, or seemed to represent, St. Paul.

He tlieu propounded tlie view tliat Simon the Sa- maritan was not a historical character, but a term of reproach invented for the Apostle Paul. The contest between Simon Peter and Simon Magus really represented the original conflict of Peter and Paul. "Wherever Simon Magus occurs we should read Paul.

At first it was clearly under- stood who this person designated as Simon the Samaritan really was, but as the two parties more and more came together the original meaning was forgotten, and hence we find, even in a book like the Acts of the Apostles, written in a con- ciliatory interest, fragments of the old contest still embedded.

But we have to recognize that tlie whole of our accepted history of early Chris- tianity is really a conventional ecclesiastical legend, and the real history of the period must be disentangled from the Clementine literature. It is mr.rveilous with what ingenuity the parallel was worked out when once the idea was started. Simon called himself the great power of God. Paul claims that he lived by the power of God {•2 Co 12^ 13^).

When Simon offers money to buy the power of conferring the gift of the Holj Gliost, tliis is an allusion to Paul, who by his contributions for the poor saints at Jerusalem was attempting to obtain the apostleship. Peter telling Simon tliat he has neither part nor lot m this matter, is really Peter telling Paul that he has not the KXijpos ttjs dTrojToX^s.

Lipsius, who had worked out this theory in the most ingenious manner, did so mainly in con- nexion with his researches into the early history of the story of St. Peter's martyrdom at Kome. The original idea of Peter bavin" visited Rome was Ebionite. ' Tlie tradition of Peter's presence in Rome, which, unhistorical as it is, can only be e.

xplained by an anti, Pauline interest, is most universally connected in the most ancient records with his relation to Simon ' (Zeller, Acts of t/ie Apostles, i. p. 267, Eng. tr. ). Rome must be claimed for true Christianity and the Jew^sh prince of the apostles, so a story was invented describing the manner in which Peter had visited Rome and there won a great victory over the false apostle, the Samaritan, i.e. Paul.

Ultimately, the Roman Church realized how important for their prestige was the visit of Peter to llome and his martyrdom there, and they adopted this legend in a Catholic .sense, Peter and Paul being represented as the first founders of the Ronuin Cliurch. The diffi- culty about this tlieory is that in the documents which we possess the Catholic theory is really the oldest, and therefore it is necessary to invent an early Ebionite Acts of Peter which contain the Ebionite form of the legend.

This, according to Lipsius, was the common source of the Simon legend and the Apocryphal Acts, and he devoted great ingenuity to reconstructing it in accordance with his theory. Rut in his later works Lipsius has given up much of his former theory, although lie still holds to the existence of early Ebionite Acts of Peter.

This theory of the identity of Simon Magus and the Apoitle Paul is gradually ceasing to be held, and many scholars summarily dismiss it ; it is, however, we notice, still accepted by Schmiedel (Encyc. Bibl. i. p. 913), and will, no doubt, be fully worked out by him. At first si'dit, from the point of vie\y of common-sense, it se'ems absurd, and as a matter of fact it has very little evidence in its favour.

The evidence that tliere seemed to be arose from a certain method of looking at facts owing to preconceived ideas. Without going into the question more thoroughly than space permits, we may touch upon the fol- lowing points : — (i.> It is very doubtful whether the Simon ot the Clementina eona-vls the Apostle Paul. ^. (ii.)

There is Uttle or no evidence for early Ebionite Aett V Peter (iii ) The evidence for the Catholic history of the visit of Peter to Rome is earUer and better than that for his visit to Rome to combat Simon Magus. That is a later story (not ap- pearing until the 3rd cent.), arising from the combination ol two or three stories. (iv.) The catena ot Patristic evidence given above suggesu > quite different account of the growth ol the legend. (i.)

ffmafar does the Simon of the Clementities conceal the Apostle Paul .'—It is quite natural that the writer of the Clementines, who was probably an Ebionite by extraction, should be anti-Pauline, and any teaching that he would consider erroneous, he would put into the mouth of Simon. But how far does the masque of Simon really conceal Paul? (a) In Horn. xvil. 12-19 Simon defends the thesis that the belief obtained by visions is more cerUin than that from per- sonal intercourse.

Peter maintoins that the personal know- ledge that he possesses is more trustworthy. This may very naturally be referred to the claim of St. Paul, that he was an apostle because he hod seen the Lord in a vision ; nor are there wanting verbal paraUels. Peter says (ch. 19; : „ _««Tiv.a.r^>'i'«« ^u Xi^u!, cf. Gal 211 ; so apin, •! Viu^ .«..«" f"f "''.= '^°''' Zz-, u^lhTtMk ifr<i»T.X« ir'.-«', and we know that St. Paul clauncd to have visions (2 Co 12i).

This explanation is quite possible: but has not the whole passage probably very much more meaning when applied to the claims made by heretics to have a speciaf revelation superior to the Church revelation? (M In Ham. ii. 17 Simon is said to be « too i/"" ui »« '>>"i T»iT« ^aW.. He preaches the false doctrine, the coming of which must precede the true which Peter taught. Is not thia Paul coing among the heathen and teaching them falsely, to be followed by Peter, who teaches them what is true?

So again Horn. ui. 69 Peter says that when he wished to teach the heathen the beUef in one God. Simon went further, and Uught them to believe in many. In vu. 4-8 Peter teUs the people of T^•re that they have been deceived by his forerunner Simon. Tlie second instance clearly Ukes away from the force of the first, because the faUe teacher is made to teach the behc-l in more than one God, and is clearly the first dissenunator ot Marcionism. ^ ^. _. ,- (c) In ifom. xviii.

6-10 we have a condemnation of indis- criminate teaching. This is Peter condemning Paul ; but real v it will have equal meaning if we suppose it introduced to e.vplain why this special doctrine of the Clementines has only been known to a few. , , •™,-„ (d) In Recoo. iii. 49 Simon is colled a vas etecticmu . . jno^no. a chosen vessel for evil, cf. Ac 91= ; and in Recog. U 18 he is said to be ma'.ujnus traii^fonnaM se m si>lcndorem lucis, ct. 2 Co U".

But nothing can be drawn from the last sentence, and the first does not mean much W hy, it PaiU U called a chosen vetsel in a good sense, should not &imoD be cMed a chnsf II vessel /or emll . (e) SoniLthing more may be said for the expression in the letter of Peter prefixed to the book in which he speaks ol ,«1....-Here Paul may weU be referred to as 'the enemj whose doctrine waa Uwless; but why should not the enemy he simplv Simon, who was by tradition the source of all false teachin.'

Lawlessness does not mean breakmg the law, but '*?/'5'ieTorsiJiLflcant passage i» Reccg.i. 70 (a curious episode peculiar to the Reco.piUiom). James hv his preac nng his verv nearlv persuaded the high priest and all the people M be baptized when ' homo inimicus ' appears and bids them not to be deceived byamagician.and attacks theni.

He was clearly intendeil to be Saul (in his unconverted davs), tntl he if tpedalbi disHiuimshed from Simon, who is introduced as som^ ™e different in the next chapter but one. Paul is qmte clearly not Simoa here. It seems very doubtful, indeed, whether Simon is ever intended to represent Paul, nor is there any Pauline teaching put into Simons mouth. The above passages, which are all the more im- portant quoted, are hardly sufficient to establish the theory that Simon U Paul.

The author or compiler of the Clementines really starts from the belief that the Simon of the Acts, whom 1 eter combated, was the source of all heresy, and so ha makes his favourite apostle travel from place to place combating in tlie person of Simon the talse Marcionit* teaching of which he was believed to be the originator. This will explain the whole situation, and is much less far-fetched than the explanation which finds St. Paul every where. _ j „j (ii.)

But without forcing this too tal, and ad- II I SIMON MAGUS SIMON MAGUS 523 initlinp that the writer may possibly have been inteudiug somewhat delitiitJly to attack Pauline teaching, there is a furtlier question : Is tliere any ernlcnce for early Ebionite Acts which con- tained a narrative of Peter and Simon (concealing Paul) ? The theory of Lipsius formerly was that there was an ori^iiiial Ebionite Acts which was the com- mon source ol both the Roman le,:.'eiul and the Clem- entines.

He found an external support for this statement in tlie passage given above from the Apoxtolic C/mstittitwns, wliich he boldly said be- lon^^ed to tlie earlier portion of that work. This is an admirable illustration of the danger of such statements, and how very untrustworthy are the attempts of any critic, however able, to guess at the ori''inal portions of a work.

Some years l)efore Lipsius wrote thus, Lagarde had already published his Greek version of the Didnscnlia, the earlier fm-m of the Constitutions, and disproved the whole lueorj'. There is no external evidence for the existence of early Ebionite ^ci* as the source of the whole story, and Lipsius has given up the theory in this form, but he still believes in early Ebionite Arts. As a matter of fact, there seems verv little evidence for their existence.

He finds Ebionite tendencies in some passages of the Acts of Peter and Paul, but the controversy there is not with Jewish Cliristianity, but with Judaism — and Simon Magus is the champion of Judaism. Th.atis the position that he occupied in the Leucian Arts, and the mssages suggest much more a Leucian than an Ebionite origin. It is even more dillicult to .speak of the sources of the Clementines, but it is very doubtful if it is necessary to assume an Ebionite^c^?

which contained an account of Simon. The contest between .Simon and Peter along the Syrian coast is almost absent from the Recognitions, perhaps the earlier form. With the exception of the concluding incident, which was clearly not part of the original work, the portion concerning Simon resolves itself into the account of his career, which is obviously based largely on Justin, and the disjiutes with Peter at Ca-sarea, in which Simon is made the protagonist of Marcioni.sm.

The latter would probably be the direct work of the author, and does not demand a source. On no subject con- nected with the Clementines is it possible to speak with certainty ; but this much seems clear, that there is no evidence of Ebionite Acts, and no need to suppose that they existed. They are merely a hypothesis, invented to support preconceived views. (lii.)

If we examine the clironological order of the development of the legend, the Catholic account of the first work of Peter and Paul at Rome is older than the storij of Simon and Peter. Both Dionysius of Corinth and Irenaius know the story of their visit, and both ascribe to them the foundation of the Roman Church. There is no certain trace of till" story concerning the contest of Simon and Peter at Rome before the 3rd cent.

, although as a matter of fact it probably existed in the Leucian Arts not later than the close of the 2nd century. Chrono- logically, the Catholic story caused the legend, not rice vcrsh. (iv.) The same is true of the whole growth of the •tory. Wo first of all trace the various elements of it as existing in dilVerent sources and varj'ing forms. The more complicated and fuller stories are the result of later growth, and not the original source. The simple n.

irrative of the Acts is the earliest, not the latest account. This will come out more clearly in what follows. V. The Growth of the Legend. — We are now in a position to sketch tentatively the growth of the whole legend. Our primary authorities must be the .Vets and Justin Martyr, because thej' are chronologically the earlier, and because the accept- ance of them explains the rest.

Justin Martyr, who lived in Samaria less than 100 years after the time of Simon, was writing about something that he would know. Whether the fully developed system as described bj' Justin comes directly from the founder of the heresy or was the product of a later member of the school, may of course still be doubted, but the system harmonizes with what we read in the Acts ; nor are there anj' a priori reasons for doubting the story about Simon and the woman he chose to call Helena.

The later account of tlie system which we find in Hippolytus was probably the production of some meiiilier of the sect ; but it is on the same lines as the older work, .and we must remember that the essence of Gnosticism was not orthodoxy but speculation. Dilierent members of the school of BasUides produced very dilierent Rj'stems, and in the same way some members of tiie school of Simon produced the later development described above.

The main source of the Clemen- tine literature was directly or indirectly Justin, possibly also Hegesippus, and some of the personal details of his life and connexion \vith Dositheus may be authentic. AVe now pass to the Roman visit. Are there any grounds for thinking that this really took place ? Probably not. Of what linp[)eiied in Samaria, Justin 18 a first-hand authority ; on m.atters in Rome he would be ignorant and misinformed.

He saw the statue, anil jumped to the conclusion that Simon, of whom he had known so much, wa.s here represented. It maj' be noticed th.at Justin gives no autliority for the Roman visit except the statue. In another direction Justin is rcsjionsible for the Simon legend, namely, by making him the source and originator of heresy. How far there is an actual historical basis for tlie idea that Gnosticism was directly or indirectly derived from him may be doubtful.

His sj'stem exhibits all the elements which go to make up Gnosticism ; especi- ally we may notice that there we first find the idea that the highest God was not the creator of the world ; but then such tendencies and ideas were in the air. The same infiuences of dualism and syncretism which worked in his case would work in others. But, anyhow, Simon w.as the one clear in- stance of a heretic mentioned in the NewTestanient.

It was natural, therefore, to represent him as the typical arch-heretic, the originator of heresy, and the place which Justin assigned to him at the he.id of his heretical genealogy was one in which lii^ position was uncontested. Next comes the Roman contest with Peter. The materials out of which this was constructed were (1) the contest of Peter and Simon in the Acts ; (2) the Rom.

an tradition that the Churcli was founded by Peter ; (3) the story of the Simon statue ; (4) a story contained in Suetonius (Nem, 12). At games initiated by Nero, some one, per- sonating Icarus, attempted to fly, and the emperor was sprinkled with blood when he fell. The story of Simon's (light towards heaven was prob- ably invented at Rome before the close of the 2nd cent., not later at any rate than the beginning of the 3rd.

Whether the author of the Leucian Acts of Peter — a Gnostic — was the first originator or not we cannot say ; very probably he was, as he seems to have helpeil to give Simon Magus a pro- minent place. According to Photius [Cod. cxiv.) that work taught that the God of the .Jews was evil, whose minister Simon was.

This woulil make it very natural that the author wo call Leucius sliduld have invented the episode; and the date which we assign later than Justin, but not later than the end of the 2nd cent., harmonizes with other indications. This story, like manj' other Leucian inventions, was attractive to the orthodox, and therefore we find it here worked up in a com- 626 SIMOX MAGUS SniON MAGUS paratively speaking ortliodox dress.

Paul was in- troduced as a companion of Pett-r, not because there had been anything anti-Pauline in the original story, hut because the combined activity of Peter and I'aul became a favourite subject of legend. For an Ebionite form of this legend there apjiears to be no evidence. There remains a certain chrono- logical confusion to discuss. According to Justin, it was in the reign of Claudius that Simon came to Kome. The origin of this date was probably the date on the statue which he saw.

The earlier form of the story, then, would bring Peter to Rome in the days of Claudius; and in the Actus Petri cum Simone nothing is said about Nero. But the martyrdotn of Peter was by tradition under Nero, so that at a later date the legend was changed to Nero's time. Eusebius, however, had before him the earlier account. He brings Simon to Rome under Claudius, and Peter Immediately after him. Is not this probably the origin of the 25 years' episcopate of Peter at Rome ?

The origin, then, of the Roman legend was prob- ably the Leucian Acts. These are represented for us mainly by the Actus Petri cum Simone, the Leucian affinities of which have been shown by James (Apocrypha Anecdota, ii. p. xxiv); the irpdffts TliTpov Kal Ilai'Xou are an orthodox recasting of the story, with the exaggerated miraculous tendency omitted. A separate line on which the legend developed is represented by the Clementine literature.

A combination of arguments would incline us to put its date at the beginning of the 3rd cent, and its origin in Syria. The sources out of which it was composed must be very doubtful, as we have little to go on, hut the story is obviously made up of different elements. There is a story of Clement and his relations; there is a story of a dispute with Apion, which sometimes seems to have been put into the mouth of Peter, but in our texts is put into the mouth of Clement.

There are certain K-qpiy- nara. or Preachings of Peter, and there is an account of the travels of Peter. But how much of this was derived from earlier sources and how much was the work of the compiler of the legend we have no means of determining. The story of the travels of Peter contained, obviously, an account of his journey from Cwsarea to Antioch, of the Churches that he founded during that journey, and the bishops and presbyters tliat he instituted.

This is preserved in both our texts ; but was the dispute with Simon Magus part of the original document? It is usually supposed that it must have been ; but in tlie Recog- nitions, which is generally considered the older form of the story, the part of Simon is confined to Caesarea, and is an episode by itself. Again, does the author know of the Roman contest ? The refer- ences to Rome occur mainly in the Recognitions, and may have been introduced to adapt the story to a Roman audience.

It is quite possible that the introduction of Simon Magus is due to the compiler of the work, and that his only historical source of knowledge about Simon waB Justin Martyr and, possibly, Hegesippus. But if his sources are doubtful, his purpose is more clear. He is an Ebionite Christian by ex- traction, who has been influenced by the specula- tive ideas which we associate with Gnosticism, and he WTites to reconcile the conflicting claims of Judaism and Christianity.

His main tenet is the Divine unity, and therefore he combats the poly- theism of the heathen, the dualism of Marcion, and Trinitarianism (if we may use the term). This last feature gives us his date, the period of the Monarchian controversy early in the 3rd cent.; and for this date there is also external evidence.

Within the limits of a common Monotlieism he hopes to find room for both Jews and Christians, and his references to the establishment of bishops and presbyters by Peter show that he wishes to adopt the existing ecclesiastical organization. There ia a certain amount of art in bis choice of characters. The defender of polytheism is Apion, perhaps the traditional opponent of Judaism ; the attack is put into the mouth of Clement, as obviously more fitted for such work than Peter.

The one heretic of the apostolic age, Simon, who was the traditional source of all heresj*, is made tlie exponent of all false Christian teaching, and his natural combatant is Peter. Paul is never men- tioned by name, but anything like an overt attack on him would have been quite beside his purpose. There are no doctrines which were ascribed to Paul attacked in the person of Simon. Simon is not Paul, nor intended by the author to be Paul.

He was obviously a WTiter witli considerable powers of invention ; he had a certain amount of history or legend or tradition, but he may very likely ba himself responsible for most of the personal episodes he describes, and for the use he has made of Simon. There is no evidence, at any rate, for any Ebionite Acts which he is supposed to have useu, nor any need to imagine them. One more feature must be referred to.

Simon is \vith him the magician as well as the false teacher, and a great deal is said about the magical element, which requires all Peter's miraculous powers to dispel. The whole of this side of the legend appears absurdly puerile to a modern reader. But we are apt to forget that all the tricks Simon claimed to perform were believed in at the time, and that those who claimed to perform magical rites were among the most deter- mined opponents of Christianity.

Majjio was a real danger, and a very subtle form of false teach- ing. It was the true spiritual force of Christianity which overcame it ; but numerous writers always ascribed this triumph to the exhibition of vulgar miraculous power.

It is maintained that this reconstruction of the history of the Simon legend represents a much more probable and consistent account of the origin of the story than the distorted and complicated theories which have appeared since the time of IJaur, and have rested chiefly on unproved hy^K)- theses of sources and fanciful reconstructions of the early historical period.* vi. The Affinities of Simon's System.

— The historical nucleus of the legend is, as we have seen, tlie narrative in the Acts, part of the story in Justin, the system as described by him belonging either to Simon himself or an earlier f(>Jlower, and perhaps some incidents recorded by the Clem- entines. When we accept this as origin!>l, the affinities of the system suggested by Baur and his followers become a legitimate explanation.

Sam- aria was a country in which a sort of bastard Judaism came in contact with the old Syrian and Phoenician religions and the newer Hellenic paganism. All these different elements are present in Simon's system. That the relation of himself and Helena is a reminiscence of the Syrian male and female deity is equally natural, whether Helena be a real person (as is probable) or only the per- sonification of an idea.

The fact that in one account — that of the Recognitions — she is oslled Luna (a translation of <re\-/ii/Ti), makes the parallel to the Sun and Moon worship, the Baal and Astarte, more close. Simon represents an aJmost pre-Christian Gnosticism, and it is significant that only here do we find this very repulsive dualistio element. Simon represents the impostor of the * It may be objected tlmt nothing haa been said »bo«t th« Simon of C.\'prus mentioTied in Jos. ArU. xx. vii. 4.

In the opinion of the present writer the two Simons have nothing to do with one another, and the resemblance of names count* tof nothing. There are said to be twenty-four SimoiiB In the IndeK to Josephus. SIMON MAGUS SDIPLICITY 527 period, wlose claims are even more improbalile than those of Apollonius of Tyana or Alexander of Abonoteiclins. His mind is a medley of Hellen- ism, Judaism, and Orientalism ; out of this he forms a system, in which he himself occupies the first position.

The influence of Christianity and then the opposition to it give a certain vitality and force to tlie ideas he sujrgests, and in other hands they become fertile and prolilic. Later Gnostics were more definitely Cliristian. The founders of the sects never claimed Divine honours for themselves. They discarded more extravagant features. Uiit they shared with Simon the funda- mental doctrine that the Creator of the world was an inferior and, perhaps, a malevolent deity.* vii.

Simon Magus and simony. — In another direction the name of Simon has become used universally for the sin of attempting to purchase spiritual gifts or spiritual preferment for money. Both sorts were included under the sin of Simon.

The earliest example seems to be from the Apos- toliial Canonx, where it is said : ' If any bishop, presbj'ter, or deacon obtain this dignity for money, both he that is ordained and the ordainer shall be deposed, and also cut oil' from all communion, as Simon Magus was bj' Peter.' And the instance is often quoted in later canons. The use of the term appears to have arisen through the Canon Law. viii. Si.MON Magus and the Faust Legend.

— There are some curious coincidences, if they are nothing more, between the legend of Simon and the story of Faust. The hero of that legend is sup- posed to have been a certain Dr. Fau.st, of Knitt- lingen, who died in 1540. The legend appears first in a written form in 15S7, and was obviously tlie result of a fertile imagination. It is quite possible that in building up tlie story reminiscences direct or indirect of the legend of Simon Magus may have come in.

The following are points of re- semblance: (1) firsth' and most clearly the intro- duction of Helena in both ; (•!) the name Faustus ; (3) the hoinuncuhis ; (4) in Simon Magus himself we may have a suggestion of Mephistopheles.

This connexion may be due to direct literary in- fluence, or we may have here two dill'erent versions of a theme whicli has been common at various times, the contest between Religion and Magic — a contest which we have to believe is far older and more universal than was once thought. LiTRRATURB. — (1) On Simon Majrus generally. The two most coniplete expositionH of the two opposing points of view are by Slnller in Herzog, /i£2 xiv. «.»., and by Lipsius in Sciienlicl's lliMLfxiatn, v. 301-.S21.

For older works see Mosheim, Iiut. hist. eccl. i. 389. There are accounts in all the works on heresies in the I'jirly Church, of which the most useful is that of Uilgcnfcld, die KeUtrieju-hichte des UrchrixUnthums, pp. 163 and 453. The most cnmplete account in English is that by Salmon in Did. Chr. llinr). iv. 681. Other treatises referred to are Simson, ' I.ieben und Lehre Simon des Magiers,' in Z. /. Airt. Theol, 1841, iii.

39 ; Baur, Das Manichdische JidigioTuuti/stem, Tiibin^en, 1831, 467, Die Chrittliche Gnosie, Tubingen, 1836, p. SOOfl. ('2) On Simon and Paul see Baur, 'Die Christuspartie in Korinth," in Tiibinger Zeittchri/t, 1S31-34, p. 116 ff., J'autut (1845), p.86fl., -nsa. |2pp. 97ff.,'.;4Clt.],B(W Chriitenthum der drei eriten Jahrhunderie^, p. 8511. : Hilgenfeld, Die ClemerUin- When Ilceonnitionen und Homilien (1848), p. 317(1., 'Der Magicr Simon," in ZFWTh, 1808, p. 867 fl.

; Zeller, Apottel- ayrhichte, 108(1. (i. p. 260, Eng. tr.); Volkmar, ' iibcr den bimon Magus der Apostelgcschicbte,' in Theot. Jahrbiicher, 1866, p. 270 IT. (3) The Apocryphal Aete may be KoA in Lipsius, Acta Apott4>torujti Apocrypha, which supersedes all previous editions. Lipsius' criticism will be found in Die QueUen der rimieclicn •The criticisms of Renan (il. 164) are interesting and worth auoting.

'Simon de Getton fut le chef d'un mouvement re- gieux, para]l6te & celui du Ohristianisme^ qu'on peut regarder comme une sorte de contrefa^on Samaritainc rfe I'osuvre de Jtmt . .(ft. 269). HiJltne, significant par 14 qu'elle 6Ult I'oblet de I'unlvervclle pursuite, la cause Atemelle de dispute entrcles homines, celle qui sc venge de sea ennemls en les rendant aveuglcs : th{>me bizarre oui mal compris ou travesM A deasein, drona lieu chei les p6res de I'iglise aux oontea lea plui banals.'

Pelna-Sa{je krititch untersucht, Kiel, 1872, and In Die Apohy- phen Apoetelgetchichten und Apostetterjfnden, ii. 1, Braunsch- weijj, Ibi". In the latter volume he very much modifies hil earlier conclusions. (4) On the Clementines may be mentioned Schliemann, Die Clementinen, Hamburg, 1844; Uhlhom, Die Homilien und Becognitionen des Clemens Jiomantis, Gottingen, 1S54 ; Hilgen- feld, Die Clementinischen liccojnitionen und Homilien^ Jena, 1S48, and in Theol. JahrltHcher, 18.'

4, 1868; Lehmonn, Die Clementinisehen Schri/ten ; Lipsius in Frotestantiiche Kir- chenzeitunrj , 1SC9, pp. 477-4S2 ; and, in English, Salmon's art. in the Diet. ChT. Biog. (5) On Simon and the Faust legend see Zahn, Cyprian von Anfiochien und die dcutsche Fausttage, Erlangen, 1882; and Kuno Fischer, Die Fausteafje. A. C. HeaDLAM.