Chapter XXII: Section I: Simon Magus, Nicolas, and the Ebionites

Several writers have speculated upon the sources of the Gnostic errors; but, I believe that the assertion of Irenæus remains uncontradicted, that SIMON MAGUS was the first to give them a definite form(538). We learn from Theodoret(539), Elias Cretensis(540), and Nicetas(541), that he imagined an ogdoad of superior beings, all the rest of whom emanated from the first. He imagined one First Cause, the source of all existence, with whom he joined his Thought (Ἔννοια). Irenæus mentions no more than these(542). Simon taught that this Thought, issuing forth from the Supreme Father, and knowing his intentions, descended from above, and produced the Angels and Powers by whom the world was made, and who were ignorant of the Father: that they, not wishing to acknowledge any author of their existence, detained her, and subjected her to every kind of contumely, to prevent her return to the Father, and caused her to exist in this world in perpetual transmigration from one female form to another.

He taught that he himself was this Supreme Father(543), and a prostitute, named Helena, whom he had purchased at Tyre, and with whom he cohabited, was his Thought, who had been formerly the Trojan Helen: that she was the lost sheep(544), and that he was come down upon earth to rescue her from the bondage in which she was held; and to rescue man by the knowledge of himself from the tyranny they were under to the angels who created the world. This tyranny was obedience to the moral law, which was imposed upon man by the agency of the inspired persons of the old dispensation solely to keep him in subjection: and the deliverance he accomplished for his followers was to bring them to believe that all actions were indifferent in their own nature, and that the will of the Creative Powers was the only thing which made one action more just than another. To do away with this tyranny, he declared that he had transformed himself first into a resemblance to the angels, then into that of man; in which latter form he had appeared in Judæa as the Son, and there apparently suffered; but only apparently(545); that he had afterwards manifested himself to the Samaritans as the Father, and to the rest of the world as the Holy Ghost(546).

Irenæus gives it as his own opinion that the conversion of Simon was only pretended; that he regarded the Apostles as nothing more than impostors or sorcerers of a somewhat deeper skill and subtler knowledge than himself, which he hoped to be initiated into: and that his mortification at the rebuff he met with caused him to set himself in opposition to them, and to dive deeper into magic arts for that purpose; on account of his proficiency in which he was honoured by Claudius Cæsar with a statue(547).

The natural fruits followed from such doctrines and such an example. The priests of his heresy were sorcerers of various degrees of ability, and their lives were very impure. They taught their followers to worship Simon under the form of Jupiter, and Helena under that of Minerva(548).

It is obvious that such a scheme was adapted only to the gross and ignorant, with just enough of mysticism about it to enable its founder to keep up the character of a philosopher with the more refined, and enable him to pass off his lewdness as the result of a philosophical system, rather than the dominion of low propensities. The Emperor Claudius, notorious as a man of weak intellect, was an extremely likely person to be both amused and duped by his magical performances.

We have here the germ of all the Antinomian heresies from that time to the present. However they may have been _espoused_ by refined and virtuous minds, they all originate with persons of impure and unbridled propensities, who are unwilling to avow the real grossness of their characters, and therefore set up for some deeper knowledge or more subtle system than ordinary men.

It will be observed, too, that Irenæus confirms the statement of Justin Martyr respecting the statue erected in honour of Simon(549). The subject is so well taken up by the late Dr. E. Burton, in the 42nd note to his Bampton Lectures, that I do not purpose to enter into it here, further than to remark that Irenæus ought not to be regarded as merely _following_ Justin: for he himself had visited Rome, and was therefore likely to have informed himself personally upon a subject which he thought sufficiently important to bring forward in controversy.

It is likewise a fact deserving notice, that the first instance we have of the worship of images amongst persons recognizing in any degree the gospel, is to be found amongst the followers of Simon Magus. Something of this kind probably suggested St. John’s caution: “Little children, keep yourselves from idols.”

Concerning NICOLAS, the author, whether intentionally or not, of the sect which bears his name(550), he informs us that he was one of the seven deacons, which some have doubted. He gives us no additional information concerning the sect, beyond that furnished by St. John(551). This, however, connects them with the Gnostics in their licentious doctrines, and no further.

The EBIONITES are mentioned by Irenæus, as though he meant to class them with the Gnostics: but all the information he gives respecting them leads to the conclusion that they had nothing in common with them, except their schism. He expressly states that they believed differently from the Gnostics, and agreed with Christians as to the creation of the world; and that they differed from Cerinthus and Carpocrates on the subject of the miraculous conception(552). Tertullian(553) indeed implies that Ebion denied this latter fact; and Eusebius distinctly asserts of the great body of his followers, that they thought, as Carpocrates and Cerinthus did, that Jesus was a mere man, and exalted for his excellence like other men(554): but he states, and Theodoret(555) confirms his statement, that there were Ebionites who believed the miraculous conception.