Chapter VI: Pre-Christian Gnostics: Simon Magus (2)

M. de Faye is probably right in saying (_Étude Critique des Documents
du Gnosticisme Chrétien_, Paris, 1913, pp. 352, 353) that the Sethiani
were never a very important sect. Stähelin’s theory (_Die Gnostischen
Quellen Hippolyts_, Leipzig, 1890) that Hippolytus was deceived by a
forger who drew all his “heresies” from one document (see Chapter VII,
_infra_) is too fantastic to be correct, but it has done good service
in calling attention to the family likeness between most of the
systems which he sketches. Cf. E. de Faye, _Intro. à l’Ét. du Gnost._,
Paris, 1903, p. 68. We are not likely to reach any more definite
conclusion unless some lucky discovery reveals to us the sources of
Hippolytus’ compilation.

Footnote 552:

Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 16, p. 191, Harvey; Hippolytus, _Philosophumena_,
Bk VI. c. 20, p. 267, Cruice; Augustine, _de Haeres. lib._ cc. I.,
II., III.; Praedestinatus, _de Haer._ Bk I. c. 1; Pseudo-Tertullian,
_adv. omn. Haer._ c. I. etc.

Footnote 553:

Acts viii. 9, 10.

Footnote 554:

From the story in Acts, it appears that what Simon tried to buy was
the power of ordination. The offence in modern ecclesiastical
jurisprudence seems to be the obtaining the priestly office by
purchase rather than by merit or gift.

Footnote 555:

Cf. Amélineau, _Gnosticisme Égyptien_, p. 51.

Footnote 556:

Morrison, _op. cit._ p. 351. Cowley in Cheyne’s _Encyclopaedia
Biblica_, _s.v._ Samaritans, omits this; but see Josephus, _Ant._ Bk
XII. c. 2, § 1.

Footnote 557:

Josephus, _op. cit._ Bk XII. c. 5, § 1.

Footnote 558:

_Ibid._ _op. cit._ Bk XIII. c. 10, § 3.

Footnote 559:

_Ibid._ _op. cit._ Bk XV. c. 9, § 5.

Footnote 560:

“Neither at Jerusalem, nor on this mountain [Gerizim] shall men
worship the Father,” John iv. 21.

Footnote 561:

Cowley in _Encyc. Bibl._ _s.v._ Samaritans, col. 4260. According to
Renan, _Les Évangiles_, p. 451, the Samaritans at the beginning of our
era were divided into a great number of sects, all more or less
attached to Simon. The authorities he quotes are, however, too late to
establish this satisfactorily.

Footnote 562:

The question was discussed and resolved, as far as it could be in the
then state of our information, by Salmon in Smith’s _Dictionary of
Christian Biography_, _s.v._ Clementines. Mgr. Duchesne, _Early
History of the Christian Church_, Eng. ed. 1909, p. 96, n. 2, sums up
in favour of their ultimate derivation from the _Preaching of Peter_
composed at the end of the IInd or beginning of IIIrd cent. He thinks
the Clementines orthodox save for a slight Arian tendency.

Footnote 563:

So Theodoret; but this was a common form in the patristic accounts of
such disputes. It is repeated in the dispute of Archelaus with Manes,
mentioned in Chapter XIII, _infra_, which see.

Footnote 564:

See Tischendorf’s edition, _passim_. The age of the book may be
guessed by its containing the _Quo Vadis_ story quoted by Origen.

Footnote 565:

Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 16, p. 191, Harvey; Hippolytus, Bk VI. c. 1, § 19,
p. 264, Cruice; Epiphanius, _Panar._ Bk I.; _Haer._ XXI. c. 2 (p. 125
of Oehler’s vol. II. pt. 1).

Footnote 566:

_Clementine Homilies_, II. c. 23.

Footnote 567:

Marcion and Marcus, both leaders of Gnostic sects, were both accused
by the Catholics of seduction, while the Pagans naturally put the
worst construction on the intimacy existing between confessors and
martyrs and their converts, as is evidenced by the story of Paul and
Thekla.

Footnote 568:

This seems to have been first set on foot by Baur and the Tübingen
school, and has lately been revived by Schmiedel in the _Encyc. Bibl._
_s.v._ Simon Magus. Even if we were to admit that it was well founded
with regard to the _Clementines_, it would not get rid of the
testimony of the Acts and of Justin Martyr that Simon Magus had an
actual historical existence.

Footnote 569:

Ἀπόφασις μεγάλη. “Declaration” would perhaps be a better translation
of the word; but that given in the text is the one used by most
writers on the subject.

Footnote 570:

Simon’s authorship of the book has been defended by Renan (_Les
Apôtres_, Paris, 1866, p. 267 and note) and attacked by many other
writers. Salmon, _op. cit._, Schmiedel, _op. cit._, and Stock in the
_Encyclopaedia Britannica_ (last edition), _s.v._ Simon Magus, aver
that there were two Simons, one the personage of the Acts, and the
other, a Gnostic leader of the IInd cent. to whom or to whose
followers the _Great Announcement_ is to be attributed. This theory,
although attractive, would prove too much; for Justin Martyr, himself
a Samaritan, has no doubt that Simon the heresiarch is the Simon of
the Acts, and if he is wrong in this, a matter which may well have
been within his own personal knowledge, Hippolytus is our best and
earliest authority for Simon’s doctrines.

Footnote 571:

Deut. iv. 24.

Footnote 572:

Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 1, § 9, p. 247, Cruice.

Footnote 573:

As when he says that the Logos is not God, but his reflection. See
Philo, _de Somn._ I. 41 (p. 656 of Mangey). “Just as those who cannot
gaze upon the sun may yet gaze upon a reflection of it.” Cf. Hatch,
_H. L._ p. 248.

Footnote 574:

Irenaeus and Epiphanius (where before quoted) both call this second
partner in the first pair of “Roots” Ἔννοια. Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk
VI. c. 1, § 13, p. 251, Cruice, has Ἐπίνοια. Does this mean
“after-thought” or “second thought” as showing her posteriority to
Nous? At any rate it is some indication that he is copying from a
different source than that of his predecessors. King (_Gnostics and
their Remains_, 2nd ed. p. 61) would translate Ἐνθύμησις by “thought,”
while he calls Ἔννοια “Intelligence.” The Abbé Cruice translates
Ἐνθύμησις “Conceptio.” It seems here to mean Desire not in a fleshly
but a mental sense.

Footnote 575:

The names of Ὄνομα and Φωνή are placed in the reverse order to the
others, inasmuch as in this pair the feminine comes first. This is
curious because in the same section they are compared to the Sun and
Moon, the sex of which is transposed in several mythologies.

Footnote 576:

The names of the Amshaspands of Zoroaster are, _Vohu Mano_, or Good
Mind, and _Asha Vahishta_, or Truth; _Khshathra Vairya_, or Right Law,
and _Spenta Armaiti_, or Wisdom; _Haurvetat_, or Good Health, and
_Ameretat_ or Immortality. The likeness between this and Simon’s
system has been noticed by, among others, Harvey the editor of
Irenaeus, in his Introduction to that author, pp. lxv _sqq._ For the
resemblance between post-exilic Judaism and Zoroastrianism, see
Cheyne, _Jewish Religious Life_, pp. 157, 210, 251, 257 _sqq._ But see
p. 197, _infra_.

Footnote 577:

Emanation is well defined by Mallet (_Culte de Neit à Saïs_, Paris,
1888, pp. 212, 213) as “a perpetual flowing-forth, which does not
imply any effort, and which consequently neither exhausts nor even
diminishes the productive principle.” Emanations, however, he goes on
to say, become weaker and less perfect the further they get from their
first source. The first mention I can find of the word is in Plutarch
(_de Is. et Os._ c. XLIX.) who says that the visible Cosmos is “the
flowing forth (ἀπορροή) and displayed image of Osiris.”

Footnote 578:

Curiously enough, the author of the _Clementine Homilies_ adopts this
notion for orthodoxy, when he makes St Peter (XVII. c. 9) declare that
God possesses six “extensions” having the nature of six infinites and
that He with them makes up the “mystery of the hebdomad.”

Footnote 579:

_I.e._ “which cannot be grasped,” “intangible,” as in the Athanasian
Creed.

Footnote 580:

ἀντιστοιχέω “set over against each other.” It seems to be a term used
in logic.

Footnote 581:

This is _not_ the Supreme Father, but the Logos or his representative
in the world succeeding his. It is with this being that Simon
according to the author of the Clementines (_Hom._ II. c. 24)
identified himself.

Footnote 582:

Ὁ ἑστώς, στάς, στησόμενος. This seems to be the expression which the
author of the Canonical Apocalypse is trying to reach in his fearful
solecism ἀπὸ ὁ ὦν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὀ ἐρχόμενος. See Revelation i. 4.

Footnote 583:

So the Supreme Being of Simon is androgyne.

Footnote 584:

The difficulty in deducing both male and female divinities from a male
or sexless Supreme being has led to some strange mythology. The
Egyptians cut the knot in an effective if coarse way. “Thus from one
god I became three gods,” says the Egyptian deity “the Lord of the
Universe,” in his account of the Creation. See Budge, “Papyrus of
Nesi-Amsu,” and _Egyptian Hieratic Papyri in the British Museum_, pp.
xiii, xiv and 14, 15. Was the author of the Apophasis acquainted with
this story? The Clementines make Simon’s associates Egyptians or
rather Alexandrians. See _Clem. Hom._ Bk IV. c. 6.

Footnote 585:

Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 1, § 18, pp. 261, 262, Cruice.

Footnote 586:

_Op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 1, § 9, p. 246, Cruice.

Footnote 587:

Amélineau, _Gnosticisme Égyptien_, p. 39, makes this perfectly clear.
Cf. Ad. Franck, “Le Gnosticisme Égyptien” in _Journal des Savans_,
Avril, 1888, pp. 212, 213. Hatch (_H.L._ p. 205) points out that it is
the doctrine of “Philo and the Platonists.”

Footnote 588:

As will be seen later, the post-Christian Gnostics of the IInd cent.
generally attributed the existence of evil to the escape of one of the
syzygies from the control of her spouse and her consequent fall into
matter. See Chapter VIII, _infra_.

Footnote 589:

The excessive reverence of the Samaritans for the Pentateuch is well
brought out by Cowley in the _Encyc. Bibl._ _s.v._ Samaritans. He says
it was the only part of the Jewish books which they took over and held
sacred (col. 4260). Simon in the _Great Announcement_ thought it
necessary to “explain” each of the Five Books separately. See
Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 1, §§ 15, 16, pp. 253-258, Cruice.

Footnote 590:

Throughout all the philosophical and religious literature of the time,
it seems to have been sufficient to quote “Orpheus and the other
theologists” to command a hearing. See Clement of Alexandria,
_passim_, for examples.

Footnote 591:

See Chapter IV, p. 123, _supra_.

Footnote 592:

See especially Fr. 239 in Abel’s _Orphica_.

Footnote 593:

Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 1, § 14, pp. 252, 253, Cruice.

Footnote 594:

_Ibid._ Bk VI. c. 1, § 13, pp. 251, 252, Cruice.

Footnote 595:

_Ibid._ _loc. cit._ Cf. Amélineau, _Gnost. Ég._ p. 39.

Footnote 596:

Abel’s _Orphica_, pp. 186, 254, 255.

Footnote 597:

“The visible and generated Gods.” So Alcmaeon of Crotona and
Xenocrates both call stars and planets gods. See Clem. Alex.
_Protrept._ c. VI.; Plato, _Timaeus_, c. XV. The prophets of the Jews,
indeed, blamed their co-religionists for “worshipping the sun towards
the east” as Ezekiel saw them doing in the Temple, or for “serving all
the host of heaven” as Jeremiah says the inhabitants of Jerusalem did;
but their reproaches make it plain that the bulk of the nation were in
this respect like their Gentile neighbours.

Footnote 598:

So Clem. Alex. _Strom._ Bk VI. c. 13, says the worship of the sun,
moon, and stars was instituted, so that the nations might not become
utterly godless.

Footnote 599:

See Bouché-Leclercq, _L’Astrologie grecque_, Paris, 1899, p. 21, for
references.

Footnote 600:

Philo, _de Monarch_. Bk I. c. 1.

Footnote 601:

Except perhaps Marcion. But we have so little literature remaining
which can with any certainty be attributed to the Marcionites that we
cannot speak with any certainty as to his phraseology. In his treatise
against the Valentinians (c. XX.) Tertullian gibes at that sect for
“thinking the different heavens intelligent, and for making angels of
them.”

Footnote 602:

Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 16, § 2, p. 192, Harvey. Theodoret, _Haer. Fab._ Bk
I. c. 5, echoes the statement, and Hippolytus, Bk VI. c. 1, § 19, p.
263, Cruice, gives what is probably the original Greek of Irenaeus.
Hatch, _H. L._ pp. 185, 186, points out that Philo held not only that
the angels were God’s instruments in making the worlds, but the
patterns after which they were made. Cf. Philo, _de Monarch._ Bk II.
c. 6.

Footnote 603:

These “orders” of supernatural beings passed into orthodox
Christianity. Cf. the εἴτε θρόνοι, εἴτε κυριότητες, εἴτε ἀρχαί, εἴτε
ἐξουσίαι of Coloss. i. 16, whence the “Thrones, Dominations, Virtues,
Princedoms, Powers” of Milton. The functions of all these different
orders are set out by Dionysius the Areopagite so-called, and present
a certain likeness to Simon’s ideas as given in the text. See Lupton
in _Dict. Christian Biog._ _s.v._ Dionysius.

Footnote 604:

That is Zeus, “Father of Gods and Men”; not the Juppiter Optimus
Maximus of later philosophy.

Footnote 605:

Possibly an allusion to the “rib” story of Genesis.

Footnote 606:

οὐχ ἁπλοῦν, ἀλλὰ διπλοῦν κατ’ εἰκόνα καὶ καθ’ ὁμοίωσιν. Hippolytus, Bk
VI. c. 1, § 14, p. 253, Cruice.

Footnote 607:

So Philo, _Legg. Allegor._ III. p. 1089, Mangey; _Quis rer. divin._ p.
503 _id._ Cf. Döllinger, _Jud. und Heid._ Eng. ed. II. p. 430.

Footnote 608:

Hippolytus, Bk VI. c. 1, § 17, p. 259, Cruice.

Footnote 609:

See last note.

Footnote 610:

So Iacchos is at once the father, son, and spouse of Persephone. Horus
is by his identification with Osiris in like manner the son, spouse
and brother of Isis. The seeking and finding seems to be an allusion
to this last pair. Cf. _P.S.B.A._ 1914, p. 93.

Footnote 611:

Hippolytus, Bk VI. c. 1, § 17, p. 259, Cruice. For the μήτηρ, πατήρ of
the text it is necessary to read μητροπάτωρ unless we are to believe
that the author is here repeating without rhyme or reason the
statement already made in the same sentence that the power he is
describing is its own mother and its own father. The expression
μητροπάτωρ is found in an address to Zeus attributed to Orpheus and
quoted by Clement of Alexandria, _Strom._ Bk V. c. 14. Cf. Frgs. 238,
239 of Abel’s _Orphica_. He remarks concerning it that, by this
μητροπάτωρ, Orpheus meant not only birth from the Μὴ ὤν, but also
“gave occasion to those who bring in the emanations and perhaps
imagine a spouse of God,”—which gives some colour to the surmise that
Clement may have been acquainted with Simon’s writings.

Footnote 612:

Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 16, § 2, p. 192, Harvey. A similar motive was
assigned by the Orphics for the murder of the infant Dionysos by the
Titans.

Footnote 613:

Hippolytus, Bk I. c. 16, § 19, pp. 263, 264, Cruice.

Footnote 614:

τοὺς μαθητὰς αἰδούμενος τοῦτον τὸν μῦθον ἔπλασεν, _loc. cit._

Footnote 615:

See _ibid._, p. 264, Cruice.

Footnote 616:

Epiphanius, _op. cit._ Bk I., _Haer._ XXI. c. 11 (p. 125 of vol. II.
pt I. of Oehler). Probably this idea is a mere echo of the story in
Genesis vi. 2, of the “sons of God” being captivated by the “daughters
of men,” which is much insisted on in the Enochian literature. Cf.
Cumont, _Recherches sur le Manichéisme_; _La Séduction des Archontes_
or Chapter XIII, _infra_ for later elaborations of the legend.

Footnote 617:

Τὴν δὲ Ἑλένην λυτρωσάμενος, οὕτως τοῖς ἀνθρώποις σωτηρίαν παρέσχε διὰ
τῆς ἰδίας ἐπιγνώσεως. See note 3 p. 190, _supra_. The ἐπίγνωσις of the
text seems to indicate that Simon discovered the way of salvation not
by any revelation from a higher power, but by his own intelligence and
examination. Cf. what he says (Hippolytus, _Phil._ Bk VI. c. 16, p.
256, Cruice) about the knowledge of Gentile writings being sufficient
for the ἐπίγνωσις τῶν ὅλων.

Footnote 618:

Acts viii. 9, 10, only says that Simon bewitched the people of
Samaria, giving himself out to be some great one (λέγων εἶναί τινα
ἑαυτὸν μέγαν); and that it was the people who said of him: “This man
is the so-called great power of God” (Οὗτός ἐστιν ἡ δύναμις τοῦ θεοῦ ἡ
καλουμένη μεγάλη). He was therefore only in the same position as Paul
and Barnabas in Phrygia when they were hailed by the populace as Zeus
and Hermes respectively. Cf. Acts xiv. 12.

Footnote 619:

Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 16, § 2, p. 193, Harvey; Epiphanius as in n. 1
_supra_. This episode of the Saviour changing his form so as not to be
recognized by the powers of the heavens through which he passes on his
way to earth, is a favourite one in the post-Christian Apocryphal
literature. Cf. R. H. Charles, _The Ascension of Isaiah_, p. 62. In
the _Pistis Sophia_ (for which see Chapter X, _infra_), Jesus in like
manner changes His appearance in each heaven on His descent to earth.
When He returns in His proper shape the spirits in every “place” into
which He enters fling themselves on their faces and cry: “How did the
Lord of the Universe change himself, so that we knew him not?”: see p.
21 Copt. _et al._ The “Docetic” theory which made the earthly body of
Jesus a phantasm or illusion appears again in the heresy of the
Valentinians and elsewhere. See Chapter IX, _infra_.

Footnote 620:

Hippolytus, _loc. cit._ p. 265, Cruice.

Footnote 621:

_Ibid._ § 20, p. 267, Cruice. The story here told is in direct
contradiction to the received tradition of the Church, that Simon met
his death when attempting to fly heavenward before the Emperor Nero.
That given in the text seems to be taken from the doings of some
Indian Yogi, and the idea of Simon teaching “sitting under a plane
tree” is distinctly Buddhistic. It is mentioned by no other writer
than Hippolytus; but Justin Martyr (_First Apolog._ c. 26) says that
he persuaded his followers that he would never die, and that some in
Justin’s day still believed this. A sort of echo of it appears in the
_Acts of Peter and Paul_, where it is said that the body of Simon
after being dashed to pieces was kept by the Emperor Nero for three
days “to see whether he would rise again.”

Footnote 622:

ἀπὸ πυρὸς ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς γενέσεως ἐστι τῶν γεννωμένων.

Footnote 623:

Clement of Alexandria (_Paedagogus_, Bk I. c. 6) says practically the
same thing.

Footnote 624:

Καὶ γίνεται ἡ τοῦ ἄρρενος τροπή, γένεσις· ἡ δὲ τῆς θηλείας τροπή,
τροφὴ τοῦ γεννωμένῳ. Note the curious jingle between τροπή and τροφή,
γένεσις and γεννωμένῳ.

Footnote 625:

Hippolytus, Bk VI. c. 1, § 17, pp. 259, 260, Cruice. That this refers
to the conjunction of man with his twin-soul or affinity is certain
from Hippolytus’ former quotation from the _Apophasis_, that man was
made by God οὐχ ἁπλοῦν, ἀλλὰ διπλοῦν κατ’ εἰκόνα καὶ καθ’ ὁμοίωσιν
“not single, but two-fold according to copy and resemblance”: and that
he will “perish with the world” unless he be made into the likeness of
the Spirit who was borne upon the face of the waters, and who was,
like that of which it was the reflection, androgyne (Hippolytus, _op.
cit._ Bk VI. c. 1, p. 253, Cruice). “But if he be made into this
likeness,” Hippolytus continues, “and is born from an indivisible
point as it is written in the _Apophasis_, that which is small will
become great. And that which is great will exist in the boundless and
incorruptible aeon, which will not be born again.” Besides the idea of
the indivisible point, which we shall meet with again in the Bruce
Papyrus (for which see Chapter X, _infra_), it seems evident that
Simon was here teaching that those who find their twin-souls will rise
in the scale of being and thus escape the cycle of changing existences
dreaded by the Orphics (see Chapter IV, _supra_). An explanation of
the metaphor of the flaming sword is suggested later. See note 3 on p.
67 of vol. II, _infra_.

Footnote 626:

Plato, _Symposium_, cc. 17, 18. Diotima later on in the same Dialogue
says that it is an old story that those who are in love are seeking
their lost half. In one of the documents of the _Pistis Sophia_, it is
said that “the servants of the Sphere of Destiny” after making the
soul of man, divide it into two parts, and give one part to a man and
another to a woman who are then bound to come together (no matter how
far apart they may be) and to unite, when a new soul is the result
(_Pistis Sophia_, p. 346, Copt.).

Footnote 627:

So in the _Pistis Sophia_ (p. 37, Copt.), Jesus says that the angels
bound in the stars were, until His coming, in the habit of turning
about and devouring their own matter, from which the souls of men and
other animals were made, in order that their rule might endure the
longer.

Footnote 628:

Probably this is the meaning of the well-known saying of Jesus,
generally quoted as coming from the _Gospel according to the
Egyptians_, in answer to Salome’s enquiry as to the time of the coming
of His kingdom: Ὅταν τὸ τῆς αἰσχύνης ἔνδυμα πατήσητε, καὶ ὅταν γένται
τά δύο ἔν, καὶ τὸ ἔξω ὡς τὸ ἔσω; καὶ τό ἄρρεν μετὰ τῆς θηλείας, οὔτε
ἄρρεν οὔτε θῆλυ. “When ye tread under foot the garment of shame, and
when the two shall be one, and the outside as the inside, and the male
with the female, neither male nor female.” See Hilgenfeld, _N.T. extra
Canon. recept._, Lipsiae, 1884, vol. IV. p. 44. “The outside as the
inside” may refer to the body and the rib which was in the Genesis
story taken out of it. So the _Pistis Sophia_ (p. 378, Copt.) speaks
of “the Light of Lights, the places of Truth and Goodness, the place
of the Holy of Holies, the place of the Holy of all Holies, the place
in which there is neither male nor female, nor shape, but Light
everlasting, unspeakable.” Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 7, p. 146,
Cruice, carrying this a step further, speaks of heaven as a place
“where there is neither male nor female, but a new creature, a new man
who is androgyne (ἀρρηνόθηλυς).”

Footnote 629:

Hippolytus, Bk VI. c. 1, § 19, p. 266, Cruice; Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 16,
§ 2, p. 194, Harvey; Epiphanius, _Haer._ XXI. c. 2, p. 124, Oehler.

Footnote 630:

Franck, _Le Gnost. Ég._ p. 212.

Footnote 631:

Clem. Alex. _Strom._ VI. c. 2.

Footnote 632:

Maspero, _Ét. Égyptol._ II. pp. 187 and 385.

Footnote 633:

_de Is. et Os._ cc. LIII. LIV. and LVI.

Footnote 634:

Clem. _Hom._ II. c. 22.

Footnote 635:

Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 16, § 3, p. 194, Harvey; Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk
VI. c. 1, § 20, p. 266, Cruice.

Footnote 636:

Irenaeus and Hippolytus where last quoted.

Footnote 637:

Hippolytus where last quoted.

Footnote 638:

Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl._ Bk II. c. 13.

Footnote 639:

Epiph. _Haer._ XXI. c. 4 (p. 125, vol. II. pt I., Oehler).

Footnote 640:

See last note.

Footnote 641:

Epiph. _Haer._ XXIV. c. 1, p. 145, Oehler. It is here attributed to
Basilides, but Epiphanius has before said that this last borrowed his
ideas from “Simon and Satornilus.”

Footnote 642:

Dan. X. 13.

Footnote 643:

Lucian, _Pseudomantis_, _passim_.

Footnote 644:

Epiphanius says that Simon taught none could be saved unless he
learned [Simon’s] system of initiation (μυσταγωγία). See Epiph.
_Haer._ XXI. c. 4, p. 127, Oehler.

Footnote 645:

Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 17, p. 195, Harvey.

Footnote 646:

Epiph. _Haer._ XXII. p. 133, Oehler; Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl._ Bk III.
c. 26. Cf. Justin Martyr, _First Apol._ c. 26. Schmiedel, _s.v._ Simon
Magus in _Encyc. Bibl._, says the exact contrary—a curious slip.

Footnote 647:

Theodoret, _Haer. Fab._ I. 1.

Footnote 648:

See note 7 _supra_.

Footnote 649:

Origen, _cont. Celsus_, Bk VI. c. 11.

Footnote 650:

Eusebius, _Hist. eccl._ Bk II. c. 13.

Footnote 651:

Tertullian, _Scorpiace_, c. 1. Eusebius, _H. E._ Bk II. c. 1, says,
speaking of his own times, that those who follow Simon’s most
scoundrelly (μιαρωτύτην) heresy were baptized into the Church, and
kept their own doctrines in secret till detected and expelled. Cf.
Origen, _c. Cels._ Bk VI. c. 11.

Footnote 652:

It was of course quite different from the Cabalistic methods,
ridiculous as those were, of the Essenes and other Jews, from the
acrostics of the Orphics, and from the allegories of Philo. With a
touching belief in the verbal inspiration of the Pentateuch, Simon and
his followers claimed that every word of it must be true and a
revelation even when transferred into another context. Thus they
claimed to teach obstetrics from geographical phrases. The only modern
parallel is to be found among the Puritans of our own Civil War, who,
as Sir Walter Scott wrote, were accustomed to pervert the language of
Scripture by adapting it to modern events, and kept a Bible lying on
the Table of the House for reference as to the better conduct of its
business.

Footnote 653:

See J. Turmel, “L’Angélologie depuis le faux Denys l’Aréopagite,”
_Rev. d’Hist. et Litt. Rel._ Paris, t. IV. No. 3 (1898), pp. 219
_sqq._

END OF VOL. I.

● Transcriber’s Notes:
○ Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).
○ Footnotes have been moved to follow the chapters in which they are
referenced.
○ Superscripts which are a single character, such as “4” with a
superscript “a”, are shown by the caret “^” character before the
superscript, such as 4^a. Longer superscripts are wrapped in curly
brackets, such as p^{tie}.