{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_12892/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_12892","id":"gutenberg_12892","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/12892","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Simon, Magus, active 1st century"],"text":"SIMON MAGUS\n\nAN ESSAY ON THE FOUNDER OF SIMONIANISM\nBASED ON THE ANCIENT SOURCES WITH\nA RE-EVALUATION OF HIS PHILOSOPHY AND TEACHINGS.\n\nBY\n\nG.R.S. MEAD\n\n\n\nSIMON MAGUS.\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\nEverybody in Christendom has heard of Simon, the magician, and how\nPeter, the apostle, rebuked him, as told in the narrative of the _Acts\nof the Apostles_. Many also have heard the legend of how at Rome this\nwicked sorcerer endeavoured to fly by aid of the demons, and how Peter\ncaused him to fall headlong and thus miserably perish. And so most think\nthat there is an end of the matter, and either cast their mite of pity\nor contempt at the memory of Simon, or laugh at the whole matter as the\ninvention of superstition or the imagination of religious fanaticism,\naccording as their respective beliefs may be in orthodoxy or\nmaterialism. This for the general. Students of theology and church\nhistory, on the other hand, have had a more difficult task set them in\ncomparing and arranging the materials they have at their disposal, as\nfound in the patristic writings and legendary records; and various\ntheories have been put forward, not the least astonishing being the\nsupposition that Simon was an alias for Paul, and that the Simon and\nPeter in the accounts of the fathers and in the narrative of the legends\nwere simply concrete symbols to represent the two sides of the Pauline\nand Petrine controversies.\n\nThe first reason why I have ventured on this present enquiry is that\nSimon Magus is invariably mentioned by the heresiologists as the founder\nof the first heresy of the commonly-accepted Christian era, and is\nbelieved by them to have been the originator of those systems of\nreligio-philosophy and theosophy which are now somewhat inaccurately\nclassed together under the heading of Gnosticism. And though this\nassumption of the patristic heresiologists is entirely incorrect, as may\nbe proved from their own works, it is nevertheless true that Simonianism\nis the first system that, as far as our present records go, came into\nconflict with what has been regarded as the orthodox stream of\nChristianity. A second reason is that I believe that Simon has been\ngrossly misrepresented, and entirely misunderstood, by his orthodox\nopponents, whoever they were, in the first place, and also, in the\nsecond place, by those who have ignorantly and without enquiry copied\nfrom them. But my chief reason is that the present revival of\ntheosophical enquiry throws a flood of light on Simon's teachings,\nwhenever we can get anything approaching a first-hand statement of them,\nand shows that it was identical in its fundamentals with the Esoteric\nPhilosophy of all the great religions of the world.\n\nIn this enquiry, I shall have to be slightly wearisome to some of my\nreaders, for instead of giving a selection or even a paraphraze of the\nnotices on Simon which we have from authenticated patristic sources, I\nshall furnish verbatim translations, and present a digest only of the\nunauthenticated legends. The growth of the Simonian legend must unfold\nitself before the reader in its native form as it comes from the pens of\nthose who have constructed it. Repetitions will, therefore, be\nunavoidable in the marshalling of authorities, but they will be shown to\nbe not without interest in the subsequent treatment of the subject, and\nat any rate we shall at least be on the sure ground of having before us\nall that has been said on the matter by the Church fathers. Having cited\nthese authorities, I shall attempt to submit them to a critical\nexamination, and so eliminate all accretions, hearsay and controversial\nopinions, and thus sift out what reliable residue is possible. Finally,\nmy task will be to show that Simon taught a system of Theosophy, which\ninstead of deserving our condemnation should rather excite our\nadmiration, and that, instead of being a common impostor and impious\nperverter of public morality, his method was in many respects of the\nsame nature as the methods of the theosophical movement of to-day, and\ndeserves the study and consideration of all students of Theosophy.\n\nThis essay will, therefore, be divided into the following parts:\n\n\nI.--Sources of Information.\n\nII.--A Review of Authorities.\n\nIII.--The Theosophy of Simon.\n\n\n\n\n\nPART I.\n\nSOURCES OF INFORMATION.\n\n\nOur sources of information fall under three heads: I. The Simon of the\n_New Testament_; II. The Simon of the Fathers; III. The Simon of the\nLegends.\n\n\nI.--_The Simon of the New Testament._\n\n_Acts_ (viii. 9-24); author and date unknown; commonly supposed to be\n\"by the author of the third gospel, traditionally known as Luke\";[1] not\nquoted prior to A.D. 177;[2] earliest MS. not older than the sixth\ncentury, though some contend for the third.\n\n\nII.--_The Simon of the Fathers._\n\ni. Justinus Martyr (_Apologia_, I. 26, 56; _Apologia_, II. 15; _Dialogus\ncum Tryphone_, 120); probable date of First Apology A.D. 141; neither\nthe date of the birth nor death of Justin is known; MS. fourteenth\ncentury.\n\nii. Irenaeus (_Contra Haereses_, I. xxiii. 1-4); chief literary activity\nlast decennium of the second century; MSS. probably sixth, seventh, and\neighth centuries; date of birth and death unknown, for the former any\ntime from A.D. 97-147 suggested, for latter 202-3.\n\niii. Clemens Alexandrinus (_Stromateis_, ii. 11; vii. 17); greatest\nliterary activity A.D. 190-203; born 150-160, date of death unknown;\noldest MS. eleventh century.\n\niv. Tertullianus (_De Praescriptionibus adversus Haereticos_, 46,\ngenerally attributed to a Pseudo-Tertullian); c. A.D. 199; (_De Anima_,\n34, 36); c. A.D. 208-9; born 150-160, died 220-240.\n\nv. [Hippolytus (?)] (_Philosophumena_, vi. 7-20); date unknown, probably\nlast decade of second to third of third century; author unknown and only\nconjecturally Hippolytus; MS. fourteenth century.\n\nvi. Origenes (_Contra Celsum_, i. 57; v. 62; vi. 11); born A.D. 185-6,\ndied 254-5; MS. fourteenth century.\n\nvii. Philastrius (_De Haeresibus_); date of birth unknown, died probably\nA.D. 387.\n\nviii. Epiphanius (_Contra Haereses_, ii. 1-6); born A.D. 310-20, died\n404; MS. eleventh century.\n\nix. Hieronymus (_Commentarium in Evangelicum Matthaei_, IV. xxiv. 5);\nwritten A.D. 387.\n\nx. Theodoretus (_Hereticarum Fabularum Compendium_, i. 1); born towards\nthe end of the fourth century, died A.D. 453-58; MS. eleventh century.\n\n\nIII.--_The Simon of the Legends._\n\nA. The so-called Clementine literature.\n\ni. _Recognitiones_, 2. _Homiliae_, of which the Greek originals are lost,\nand the Latin translation of Rufinus (born c.A.D. 345, died 410) alone\nremains to us. The originals are placed by conjecture somewhere about\nthe beginning of the third century; MS. eleventh century.\n\nB. A mediaeval account; (_Constitutiones Sanctorum Apostolorum_, VI.\nvii, viii, xvi); these were never heard of prior to 1546, when a\nVenetian, Carolus Capellus, printed an epitomized translation of them\nfrom an MS. found in Crete. They are hopelessly apocryphal.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI.--_The Simon of the New Testament._\n\n_Acts_ (viii. 9-24). Text: _The Greek Testament_ (with the readings\nadopted by the revisers of the authorized version); Oxford, 1881.\n\n     Now a certain fellow by name Simon had been previously in the city\n     practising magic and driving the people of Samaria out of their\n     wits, saying that he was some great one; to whom all from small to\n     great gave heed, saying: \"This man is the Power of God which is\n     called Great.\" And they gave heed to him, owing to his having\n     driven them out of their wits for a long time by his magic arts.\n     But when they believed on Philip preaching about the Kingdom of God\n     and the Name of Jesus Christ, they began to be baptized, both men\n     and women. And Simon himself also believed, and after being\n     baptized remained constantly with Philip; and was driven out of\n     _his_ wits on seeing the signs and great wonders[3] that took\n     place.\n\n     And the apostles in Jerusalem hearing that Samaria had received the\n     Word of God, sent Peter and John to them. And they went down and\n     prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For as\n     yet it had not fallen upon any of them, but they had only been\n     baptized unto the Name of the Lord Jesus.\n\n     Then they laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy\n     Spirit. And when Simon saw that the Holy Spirit was given by the\n     laying on of the hands of the apostles, he offered them money,\n     saying: \"Give unto me also this power, in order that on whomsoever\n     I lay my hands he may receive the Holy Spirit.\"\n\n     But Peter said unto him: \"Thy silver perish with thee, in that thou\n     didst think that the gift of God is possessed with money. There is\n     not for thee part or lot in this Word, for thy heart is not right\n     before God. Therefore turn from this evil of thine, and pray the\n     Lord, if by chance the thought of thy heart shall be forgiven thee.\n     For I see that thou art in the gall of bitterness and the bond of\n     iniquity.\"\n\n     And Simon answered and said: \"Pray ye on my behalf to the Lord,\n     that none of the things that ye have said may come upon me.\"\n\n\nII.--_The Simon of the Fathers._\n\ni. Justinus Martyr (_Apologia_, I. 26). Text: _Corpus Apologetarum\nChristianorum Saeculi Secundi_ (edidit Io. Car. Th. Eques de Otto); Jenae,\n1876 (ed. tert.).\n\n     And thirdly, that even after the ascension of the Christ into\n     heaven the daemons cast before themselves (as a shield) certain men\n     who said that they were gods, who were not only not expelled by\n     you,[4] but even thought worthy of honours; a certain Samaritan,\n     Simon, who came from a village called Gitta; who in the reign of\n     Claudius Caesar[5] wrought magic wonders by the art of the daemons\n     who possessed him, and was considered a god in your imperial city\n     of Rome, and as a god was honoured with a statue by you, which\n     statue was erected in the river Tiber, between the two bridges,\n     with the following inscription in Roman: \"Simoni Deo Sancto.\" And\n     nearly all the Samaritans, but few among the rest of the nations,\n     confess him to be the first god and worship him. And they speak of\n     a certain Helen, who went round with him at that time, and who had\n     formerly prostituted herself,[6] but was made by him his first\n     Thought.\n\nii. Irenaeus (_Contra Haereses_, I. xxiii. 1-4). Text: _Opera_ (edidit\nAdolphus Stieren); Lipsiae, 1848.\n\n     1. Simon was a Samaritan, the notorious magician of whom Luke the\n     disciple and adherent of the apostles says: \"But there was a fellow\n     by name Simon, who had previously practised the art of magic in\n     their state, and led away the people of the Samaritans, saying that\n     he was some great one, to whom they all listened, from the small to\n     the great, saying: 'He is the Power of God, which is called Great.'\n     Now they gave heed to him because he had driven them out of their\n     wits by his magical phenomena.\" This Simon, therefore, pretended to\n     be a believer, thinking that the apostles also wrought their cures\n     by magic and not by the power of God; and supposing that their\n     filling with the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands those who\n     believed in God, through that Christ Jesus who was being preached\n     by them--that this was effected by some superior magical knowledge,\n     and offering money to the apostles, so that he also might obtain\n     the power of giving the Holy Spirit to whomsoever he would, he\n     received this answer from Peter: \"Thy money perish with thee, since\n     thou hast thought that the gift of God is obtained possession of\n     with money; for thee there is neither part nor lot in this Word,\n     for thy heart is not right before God. For I see thou art in the\n     gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity.\"\n\n     And since the magician still refused to believe in God, he\n     ambitiously strove to contend against the apostles, so that he also\n     might be thought of great renown, by extending his investigations\n     into universal magic still farther, so that he struck many aghast;\n     so much so that he is said to have been honoured with a statue for\n     his magic knowledge by Claudius Caesar.\n\n     He, therefore, was glorified by many as a god; and he taught that\n     it was he himself who, forsooth, appeared among the Jews as the\n     Son, while in Samaria he descended as the Father, and in the rest\n     of the nations he came as the Holy Spirit. That he was the highest\n     power, to wit, the Father over all, and that he allowed himself to\n     be called by whatever name men pleased.\n\n     2. Now the sect of the Samaritan Simon, from whom all the heresies\n     took their origin, was composed of the following materials.\n\n     He took round with him a certain Helen, a hired prostitute from the\n     Phoenician city Tyre, after he had purchased her freedom, saying\n     that she was the first conception (or Thought) of his Mind, the\n     Mother of All, by whom in the beginning he conceived in his Mind\n     the making of the Angels and Archangels. That this Thought, leaping\n     forth from him, and knowing what was the will of her Father,\n     descended to the lower regions and generated the Angels and Powers,\n     by whom also he said this world was made. And after she had\n     generated them, she was detained by them through envy, for they did\n     not wish to be thought to be the progeny of any other. As for\n     himself, he was entirely unknown by them; and it was his Thought\n     that was made prisoner by the Powers and Angels that has been\n     emanated by her. And she suffered every kind of indignity at their\n     hands, to prevent her re\u00e4scending to her Father, even to being\n     imprisoned in the human body and transmigrating into other female\n     bodies, as from one vessel into another.[7] She also was in that\n     Helen, on whose account the Trojan War arose; wherefore also\n     Stesichorus[8] was deprived of his sight when he spake evil of her\n     in his poems; and that afterwards when he repented and wrote what\n     is called a recantation, in which he sang her praises, he recovered\n     his sight. So she, transmigrating from body to body, and thereby\n     also continually undergoing indignity, last of all even stood for\n     hire in a brothel; and she was the \"lost sheep.\"\n\n     3. Wherefore also he himself had come, to take her away for the\n     first time, and free her from her bonds, and also to guarantee\n     salvation to men by his \"knowledge.\" For as the Angels were\n     mismanaging the world, since each of them desired the sovereignty,\n     he had come to set matters right; and that he had descended,\n     transforming himself and being made like to the Powers and\n     Principalities and Angels; so that he appeared to men as a man,\n     although he was not a man; and was thought to have suffered in\n     Judaea, although he did not really suffer. The Prophets moreover had\n     spoken their prophecies under the inspiration of the Angels who\n     made the world; wherefore those who believed on him and his Helen\n     paid no further attention to them, and followed their own pleasure\n     as though free; for men were saved by his grace, and not by\n     righteous works. For righteous actions are not according to nature,\n     but from accident, in the manner that the Angels who made the world\n     have laid it down, by such precepts enslaving men. Wherefore also\n     he gave new promises that the world should be dissolved and that\n     they who were his should be freed from the rule of those who made\n     the world.\n\n     4. Wherefore their initiated priests live immorally. And everyone\n     of them practises magic arts to the best of his ability. They use\n     exorcisms and incantations. Love philtres also and spells and what\n     are called \"familiars\" and \"dream-senders,\" and the rest of the\n     curious arts are assiduously cultivated by them. They have also an\n     image of Simon made in the likeness of Jupiter, and of Helen in\n     that of Minerva; and they worship the (statues); and they have a\n     designation from their most impiously minded founder, being called\n     Simonians, from whom the Gn\u00f4sis, falsely so-called, derives its\n     origins, as one can learn from their own assertions.\n\niii. Clemens Alexandrinus (_Stromateis_, ii. 11; vii. 17). Text: _Opera_\n(edidit G. Dindorfius); Oxoniae, 1869.\n\nIn the first passage the Simonian use of the term, \"He who stood,\" is\nconfirmed, in the latter we are told that a branch of the Simonians was\ncalled Entychitae.\n\niv. Tertullianus, or Pseudo-Tertullianus (_De Praescriptionibus_, 46).\nText: _Liber de Praes_., etc. (edidit H. Hurter, S.J.); Oeniponti, 1870.\nTertullianus (_De Anima_, 34, 36). Text: _Bibliothec. Patr. Eccles.\nSelect._ (curavit Dr. Guil. Bruno Linder), Fasc. iv; Lipsiae, 1859.\n\nIn the _Praescriptions_ the passage is very short, the briefest notice\npossible, under the heading, \"Anonymi Catalogus Heresum.\" The notice in\nthe _De Anima_ runs as follows:\n\n     For Simon the Samaritan also, the purveyor of the Holy Spirit, in\n     the _Acts of the Apostles_, after he had been condemned by himself,\n     together with his money, to perdition, shed vain tears and betook\n     himself to assaulting the truth, as though for the gratification of\n     vengeance. Supported by the powers of his art, for the purpose of\n     his illusions through some power or other, he purchased with the\n     same money a Tyrian woman Helen from a place of public pleasure, a\n     fit commodity instead of the Holy Spirit. And he pretended that he\n     was the highest Father, and that she was his first suggestion\n     whereby he had suggested the making of the Angels and Archangels;\n     that she sharing in this design had sprung forth from the Father,\n     and leaped down into the lower regions; and that there, the design\n     of the Father being prevented, she had brought forth Angelic Powers\n     ignorant of the Father, the artificer of this world; by these she\n     was detained, not according to his intention, lest when she had\n     gone they should be thought to be the progeny of another. And\n     therefore being made subject to every kind of contumely, so that by\n     her depreciation she might not choose to depart, she had sunk to as\n     low as the human form, as though she had had to be restrained by\n     chains of flesh, and then for many ages being turned about through\n     a succession of female conditions, she became also that Helen who\n     proved so fatal to Priam, and after to the eyes of Stesichorus, for\n     she had caused his blindness on account of the insult of his poem,\n     and afterwards had removed it because of her pleasure at his\n     praise. And thus transmigrating from body to body, in the extreme\n     of dishonour she had stood, ticketed for hire, a Helen viler [than\n     her predecessor]. She was, therefore, the \"lost sheep,\" to whom the\n     highest Father, Simon, you know, had descended. And after she was\n     recovered and brought back, I know not whether on his shoulders or\n     knees, he afterwards had respect to the salvation of men, as it\n     were by the liberation of those who had to be freed from these\n     Angelic Powers, for the purpose of deceiving whom he transformed\n     himself, and pretended that he was a man to men only, playing the\n     part of the Son in Judaea, and that of the Father in Samaria.\n\nv. [Hippolytus (?)] _(Philosophumena_, vi. 7-20). Text: _Refutatio\nOmnium Haeresium_ (ediderunt Lud. Duncker et F.G. Schneidewin);\nGottingae, 1859.\n\n     7. I shall, therefore, set forth the system of Simon of Gittha, a\n     village of Samaria, and shall show that it is from him that those\n     who followed[9] him got their inspiration, and that the\n     speculations they venture upon have been of a like nature, though\n     their terminology is different.\n\n     This Simon was skilled in magic, and deluding many, partly by the\n     art of Thrasymedes, in the way we have explained above,[10] and\n     partly corrupting them by means of daemons, he endeavoured to deify\n     himself--a sorcerer fellow and full of insanity, whom the apostles\n     confuted in the _Acts_. Far more prudent and modest was the aim of\n     Apsethus, the Libyan, who tried to get himself thought a god in\n     Libya. And as the story of Apsethus is not very dissimilar to the\n     ambition of the foolish Simon, it will not be unseemly to repeat\n     it, for it is quite in keeping with Simon's endeavour.\n\n     8. Apsethus, the Libyan, wanted to become a god. But in spite of\n     the greatest exertions he failed to realize his longing, and so he\n     desired that at any rate people should _think_ that he had become\n     one; and, indeed, for a considerable time he really did get people\n     to think that such was the case. For the foolish Libyans sacrificed\n     to him as to some divine power, thinking that they were placing\n     their confidence in a voice that came down from heaven.\n\n     Well, he collected a large number of parrots and put them all into\n     a cage. For there are a great many parrots in Libya and they mimic\n     the human voice very distinctly. So he kept the birds for some time\n     and taught them to say, \"Apsethus is a god.\" And when, after a long\n     time, the birds were trained and could speak the sentence which he\n     considered would make him be thought to be a god, he opened the\n     cage and let the parrots go in every direction. And the voice of\n     the birds as they flew about went out into all Libya, and their\n     words reached as far as the Greek settlements. And thus the\n     Libyans, astonished at the voice of the birds, and having no idea\n     of the trick which had been played them by Apsethus, considered him\n     to be a god.\n\n     But one of the Greeks, correctly surmising the contrivance of the\n     supposed god, not only confuted him by means of the self-same\n     parrots, but also caused the total destruction of this boastful and\n     vulgar fellow. For the Greek caught a number of the parrots and\n     re-taught them to say \"Apsethus caged us and made us say, 'Apsethus\n     is a god.'\" And when the Libyans heard the recantation of the\n     parrots, they all assembled together of one accord and burnt\n     Apsethus alive.\n\n     9. And in the same way we must regard Simon, the magician, more\n     readily comparing him with the Libyan fellow's thus becoming a god.\n     And if the comparison is a correct one, and the fate which the\n     magician suffered was somewhat similar to that of Apsethus, let us\n     endeavour to _re-teach the parrots of Simon_, that he was not\n     Christ, who has stood, stands and will stand, but a man, the child\n     of a woman, begotten of seed, from blood and carnal desire, like\n     other men. And that this is the case, we shall easily demonstrate\n     as our narrative proceeds.\n\n     Now Simon in his paraphrasing of the Law of Moses speaks with\n     artful misunderstanding. For when Moses says \"God is a fire burning\n     and destroying,\"[11] taking in an incorrect sense what Moses said,\n     he declares that Fire is the Universal Principle, not understanding\n     what was said, viz., not that \"God is fire,\" but \"a fire burning\n     and destroying.\" And thus he not only tears to pieces the Law of\n     Moses, but also plunders from Heracleitus the obscure.[12] And\n     Simon states that the Universal Principle is Boundless Power, as\n     follows:\n\n     \"_This is the writing of the revelation of Voice and Name from\n     Thought, the Great Power, the Boundless. Wherefore shall it be\n     sealed, hidden, concealed, laid in the Dwelling of which the\n     Universal Root is the foundation_.\"[13]\n\n     And he says that man here below, born of blood, is the Dwelling,\n     and that the Boundless Power dwells in him, which he says is the\n     Universal Root. And, according to Simon, the Boundless Power, Fire,\n     is not a simple thing, as the majority who say that the four\n     elements are simple have considered fire also to be simple, but\n     that the Fire has a twofold nature; and of this twofold nature he\n     calls the one side the concealed and the other the manifested,\n     (stating) that the concealed (parts) of the Fire are hidden in the\n     manifested, and the manifested produced by the concealed.\n\n     This is what Aristotle calls \"in potentiality\" and \"in actuality,\"\n     and Plato the \"intelligible\" and \"sensible.\"\n\n     And the manifested side of the Fire has all things in itself which\n     a man can perceive of things visible, or which he unconsciously\n     fails to perceive. Whereas the concealed side is everything which\n     one can conceive as intelligible, even though it escape sensation,\n     or which a man fails to conceive.\n\n     And generally we may say, of all things that are, both sensible\n     and intelligible, which he designates concealed and manifested, the\n     Fire, which is above the heavens, is the treasure-house, as it were\n     a great Tree, like that seen by Nabuchodonosor in vision, from\n     which all flesh is nourished. And he considers the manifested side\n     of the Fire to be the trunk, branches, leaves, and the bark\n     surrounding it on the outside. All these parts of the great Tree,\n     he says, are set on fire from the all-devouring flame of the Fire\n     and destroyed. But the fruit of the Tree, if its imaging has been\n     perfected and it takes the shape of itself, is placed in the\n     storehouse, and not cast into the Fire. For the fruit, he says, is\n     produced to be placed in the storehouse, but the husk to be\n     committed to the Fire; that is to say, the trunk, which is\n     generated not for its own sake but for that of the fruit.\n\n     10. And this he says is what is written in the scripture: \"For the\n     vineyard of the Lord Saba\u00f4th is the house of Israel, and a man of\n     Judah a well-beloved shoot.\"[14] And if a man of Judah is a\n     well-beloved shoot, it is shown, he says, that a tree is nothing\n     else than a man. But concerning its sundering and dispersion, he\n     says, the scripture has sufficiently spoken, and what has been said\n     is sufficient for the instruction of those whose imaging has been\n     perfected, viz.: \"All flesh is grass, and every glory of the flesh\n     as the flower of grass. The grass is dried up and the flower\n     thereof falleth, but the speech of the Lord endureth for the\n     eternity (aeon).\"[15] Now the Speech of the Lord, he says, is the\n     Speech engendered in the mouth and the Word (Logos), for elsewhere\n     there is no place of production.\n\n     11. To be brief, therefore, the Fire, according to Simon, being of\n     such a nature--both all things that are visible and invisible, and\n     in like manner, those that sound within and those that sound aloud,\n     those which can be numbered and those which are numbered--in the\n     _Great Revelation_ he calls it the Perfect Intellectual, as (being)\n     everything that can be thought of an infinite number of times, in\n     an infinite number of ways, both as to speech, thought and action,\n     just as Empedocles[16] says:\n\n     \"By earth earth we perceive; by water, water; by aether [divine],\n     aether; fire by destructive fire; by friendship, friendship; and\n     strife by bitter strife.\"\n\n     12. For, he says, he considered that all the parts of the Fire,\n     both visible and invisible, possessed perception[17] and a portion\n     of intelligence. The generable cosmos, therefore, was generated\n     from the ingenerable Fire. And it commenced to be generated, he\n     says, in the following way. The first six Roots of the Principle of\n     generation which the generated (_sc._, cosmos) took, were from that\n     Fire. And the Roots, he says, were generated from the Fire in\n     pairs,[18] and he calls these Roots Mind and Thought, Voice and\n     Name, Reason and Reflection, and in these six Roots there was the\n     whole of the Boundless Power together, in potentiality, but not in\n     actuality. And this Boundless Power he says is He who has stood,\n     stands and will stand; who, if his imaging is perfected while in\n     the six Powers, will be, in essence, power, greatness and\n     completeness, one and the same with the ingenerable and Boundless\n     Power, and not one single whit inferior to that ingenerable,\n     unchangeable and Boundless Power. But if it remain in potentiality\n     only, and its imaging is not perfected, then it disappears and\n     perishes, he says, just as the potentiality of grammar or geometry\n     in a man's mind. For potentiality when it has obtained art becomes\n     the light of generated things, but if it does not do so an absence\n     of art and darkness ensues, exactly as if it had not existed at\n     all; and on the death of the man it perishes with him.\n\n     13. Of these six Powers and the seventh which is beyond the six, he\n     calls the first pair Mind and Thought, heaven and earth; and the\n     male (heaven) looks down from above and takes thought for its\n     co-partner, while the earth from below receives from the heaven the\n     intellectual fruits that come down to it and are cognate with the\n     earth. Wherefore, he says, the Word ofttimes steadfastly\n     contemplating the things which have been generated from Mind and\n     Thought, that is from heaven and earth, says: \"Hear, O heaven, and\n     give ear, O earth, for the Lord hath said: I have generated sons\n     and raised them up, but they have set me aside.\"[19]\n\n     And he who says this, he says, is the seventh Power, He who has\n     stood, stands and will stand, for He is the cause of those good\n     things which Moses praised and said they were very good. And (the\n     second pair is) Voice and Name, sun and moon. And (the third)\n     Reason and Reflection, air and water. And in all of these was\n     blended and mingled the Great Power, the Boundless, He who has\n     stood, as I have said.\n\n     14. And when Moses says: \"(It is) in six days that God made the\n     heaven and the earth, and on the seventh he rested from all his\n     works,\" Simon arranges it differently and thus makes himself into a\n     god. When, therefore, they (the Simonians) say, that there are\n     three days before the generation of the sun and moon, they mean\n     esoterically Mind and Thought--that is to say heaven and earth--and\n     the seventh Power, the Boundless. For these three Powers were\n     generated before all the others. And when they say \"he hath\n     generated me before all the Aeons,\" the words, he says, are used\n     concerning the seventh Power. Now this seventh Power which was the\n     first Power subsisting in the Boundless Power, which was generated\n     before all the Aeons, this, he says, was the seventh Power, about\n     which Moses says: \"And the spirit of God moved over the water,\"\n     that is to say, he says, the spirit which hath all things in\n     itself, the Image of the Boundless Power, concerning which Simon\n     says: \"_The Image from, the incorruptible Form, alone ordering all\n     things._\" For the Power which moves above the water, he says, is\n     generated from an imperishable Form, and alone orders all things.\n\n     Now the constitution of the world being with them after this or a\n     similar fashion, God, he says, fashioned man by taking soil from\n     the earth. And he made him not single but double, according to the\n     image and likeness. And the Image is the spirit moving above the\n     water, which, if its imaging is not perfected, perishes together\n     with the world, seeing that it remains only in potentiality and\n     does not become in actuality. And this is the meaning of the\n     Scripture, he says: \"Lest we be condemned together with the\n     world.\"[20] But if its imaging should be perfected and it should be\n     generated from an \"indivisible point,\" as it is written in his\n     _Revelation_, the small shall become great. And this great shall\n     continue for the boundless and changeless eternity (_aeon_), in as\n     much as it is no longer in the process of becoming.[21]\n\n     How and in what manner, then, he asks, does God fashion man? In the\n     Garden (Paradise), he thinks. We must consider the womb a Garden,\n     he says, and that this is the \"cave,\" the Scripture tells us when\n     it says: \"I am he who fashioned thee in thy mother's womb,\"[22] for\n     he would have it written in this way. In speaking of the Garden, he\n     says, Moses allegorically referred to the womb, if we are to\n     believe the Word.\n\n     And, if God fashions man in his mother's womb, that is to say in\n     the Garden, as I have already said, the womb must be taken for the\n     Garden, and Eden for the region (surrounding the womb), and the\n     \"river going forth from Eden to water the Garden,\"[23] for the\n     navel. This navel, he says, is divided into four channels, for on\n     either side of the navel two air-ducts are stretched to convey the\n     breath, and two veins[24] to convey blood. But when, he says, the\n     navel going forth from the region of Eden is attached to the foetus\n     in the epigastric regions, that which is commonly called by\n     everyone the navel[25] ... and the two veins by which the blood\n     flows and is carried from the Edenic region through what are called\n     the gates of the liver, which nourish the foetus. And the\n     air-ducts, which we said were channels for breath, embracing the\n     bladder on either side in the region of the pelvis, are united at\n     the great duct which is called the dorsal aorta. And thus the\n     breath passing through the side doors towards the heart produces\n     the movement of the embryo. For as long as the babe is being\n     fashioned in the Garden, it neither takes nourishment through the\n     mouth, nor breathes through the nostrils. For seeing that it is\n     surrounded by the waters (of the womb), death would instantly\n     supervene, if it took a breath; for it would draw after it the\n     waters and so perish. But the whole (of the foetus) is wrapped up\n     in an envelope, called the amnion, and is nourished through the\n     navel and receives the essence of the breath through the dorsal\n     duct, as I have said.\n\n     15. The river, therefore, he says, which goes out of Eden, is\n     divided into four channels, four ducts, that is to say; into four\n     senses of the foetus: sight, (hearing),[26] smelling, taste and\n     touch. For these are the only senses the child has while it is\n     being formed in the Garden.\n\n     This, he says, is the law which Moses laid down, and in accordance\n     with this very law each of his books was written, as the titles\n     show. The first book is _Genesis_, and the title of the book, he\n     says, is sufficient for a knowledge of the whole matter. For this\n     _Genesis_, he says, is sight, which is one division of the river.\n     For the world is perceived by sight.\n\n     The title of the second book is _Exodus_. For it was necessary for\n     that which is born to travel through the Red Sea, and pass towards\n     the Desert--by Red the blood is meant, he says--and taste the\n     bitter water. For the \"bitter,\" he says, is the water beyond the\n     Red Sea, inasmuch as it is the path of knowledge of painful and\n     bitter things which we travel along in life. But when it is changed\n     by Moses, that is to say by the Word, that bitter (water) becomes\n     sweet. And that this is so, all may hear publicly by repeating\n     after the poets:\n\n     \"In root it was black, but like milk was the flower. Moly the Gods\n     call it. For mortals to dig it up is difficult; but Gods can do all\n     things.\"[27]\n\n     16. Sufficient, he says, is what is said by the Gentiles for a\n     knowledge of the whole matter, for those who have ears for hearing.\n     For he who tasted this fruit, he says, was not only not changed\n     into a beast by Circe, but using the virtue of the fruit, reshaped\n     those who had been already changed into beasts, into their former\n     proper shape, and re-struck and recalled their type. For the true\n     man and one beloved by that sorceress is discovered by this\n     milk-white divine fruit, he says.\n\n     In like manner _Leviticus_, the third book, is smelling or\n     respiration. For the whole of that book treats of sacrifices and\n     offerings. And wherever there is a sacrifice, there arises the\n     smell of the scent from the sacrifice owing to the incense,\n     concerning which sweet smell the sense of smell is the test.\n\n     _Numbers_, the fourth book, signifies taste, wherein speech (or the\n     Word) energizes. And it is so called through uttering all things in\n     numerical order.\n\n     _Deuteronomy_, again, he says, is so entitled in reference to the\n     sense of touch of the child which is formed. For just as the touch\n     by contact synthesizes and confirms the sensations of the other\n     senses, proving objects to be either hard, warm, or adhesive, so\n     also the fifth book of the Law is the synthesis of the four books\n     which precede it.\n\n     All ingenerables, therefore, he says, are in us in potentiality but\n     not in actuality, like the science of grammar or geometry. And if\n     they meet with befitting utterance[28] and instruction, and the\n     \"bitter\" is turned into the \"sweet\"--that is to say, spears into\n     reaping hooks and swords into ploughshares[29]--the Fire will not\n     have born to it husks and stocks, but perfect fruit, perfected in\n     its imaging, as I said above, equal and similar to the ingenerable\n     and Boundless Power. \"For now,\" says he, \"the axe is nigh to the\n     roots of the tree: every tree,\" he says, \"that bringeth not forth\n     good fruit, is cut down and cast into the fire.\"[30]\n\n     17. And so, according to Simon, that blessed and imperishable\n     (principle) concealed in everything, is in potentiality, but not in\n     actuality, which indeed is He who has stood, stands and will stand;\n     who has stood above in the ingenerable Power, who stands below in\n     the stream of the waters, generated in an image, who shall stand\n     above, by the side of the blessed and Boundless Power, if the\n     imaging be perfected. For three, he says, are they that stand, and\n     without there being three standing Aeons, there would be no setting\n     in order[31] of the generable which, according to them, moves on\n     the water, and which is fashioned according to the similitude into\n     a perfect celestial, becoming in no whit inferior to the\n     ingenerable Power, and this is the meaning of their saying: \"_Thou\n     and I, the one thing; before me, thou; that after thee, I._\"\n\n     This, he says, is the one Power, separated into the above and\n     below, generating itself, increasing itself, seeking itself,\n     finding itself, its own mother, its own father, its sister, its\n     spouse; the daughter, son, mother, and father of itself; One, the\n     Universal Root.\n\n     And that, as he says, the beginning of the generation of things\n     which are generated is from Fire, he understands somewhat in this\n     fashion. Of all things of which there is generation, the beginning\n     of the desire for their generation is from Fire. For, indeed, the\n     desire of mutable generation is called \"being on fire.\" And though\n     Fire is one, yet has it two modes of mutation. For in the man, he\n     says, the blood, being hot and yellow--like fire when it takes\n     form--is turned into seed, whereas in the woman the same blood (is\n     changed) into milk. And this change in the male becomes the faculty\n     of generating, while that in the female (becomes) nourishment for\n     the child. This, he says, is \"the flaming sword that is turned\n     about to keep the way of the tree of life.\"[32] For the blood is\n     turned into seed and milk; and this Power becomes mother and\n     father, father of those that are born, and mother of those that are\n     nourished, standing in want of nothing, sufficient unto itself. And\n     the tree of life, he says, is guarded by the fiery sword which is\n     turned about, (which tree), as we have said, (is) the seventh Power\n     which proceeds from itself, contains all (in itself), and is stored\n     in the six Powers. For were the flaming sword not turned about,\n     that fair tree would be destroyed and perish; but if it is turned\n     into seed and milk, that which is stored in them in potentiality,\n     having obtained a fitting utterance,[33] and an appointed place in\n     which the utterance may be developed, starting as it were from the\n     smallest spark, it will increase to all perfection, and expand, and\n     be an infinite power, unchangeable, equal and similar to the\n     unchangeable Aeon, which is no more generated for the boundless\n     eternity.\n\n     18. Conformably, therefore, to this reasoning, for the foolish,\n     Simon was a god, like that Libyan Apsethus; (a god) subject to\n     generation and suffering, so long as he remained in potentiality,\n     but freed from the bonds of suffering and birth, as soon as his\n     imaging forth was accomplished, and attaining perfection he passed\n     forth from the first two Powers, to wit heaven and earth. For Simon\n     speaks distinctly concerning this in his _Revelation_ as follows:\n\n     \"_To you, therefore, I say what I say, and write what I write. And\n     the writing is this._\n\n     \"_Of the universal Aeons there are two shoots, without beginning or\n     end, springing from one Root, which is the Power invisible,\n     inapprehensible Silence. Of these shoots one is manifested from\n     above, which is the Great Power, the Universal Mind ordering all\n     things, male, and the other, (is manifested) from below, the Great\n     Thought, female, producing all things_.\n\n     \"_Hence pairing with each other_,[34] _they unite and manifest the\n     Middle Distance, incomprehensible Air, without beginning or end. In\n     this is the Father who sustains all things, and nourishes those\n     things which have a beginning and end._\n\n     \"_This is He who has stood, stands and will stand, a male-female\n     power like the pre\u00ebxisting Boundless Power, which has neither\n     beginning nor end, existing in oneness. For it is from this that\n     the Thought in the oneness proceeded and became two._\n\n     \"_So he_[35] _was one; for having her_[36] _in himself, he was\n     alone, not however first, although pre\u00ebxisting, but being\n     manifested from himself to himself, he became second. Nor was he\n     called Father before (Thought) called him Father._\n\n     \"_As, therefore, producing himself by himself, he manifested to\n     himself his own Thought, so also the Thought that was manifested\n     did not make the Father, but contemplating him hid him--that is to\n     say the Power--in herself, and is male-female, Power and Thought._\n\n     \"_Hence they pair with each other being one, for there is no\n     difference between Power and Thought. From the things above is\n     discovered Power, and from those below Thought._\n\n     \"_In the same manner also that which was manifested from them_[37]\n     _although being one is yet found as two, the male-female having the\n     female in itself. Thus Mind is in Thought--things inseparable from\n     one another--which although being one are yet found as two._\"\n\n     19. So then Simon by such inventions got what interpretation he\n     pleased, not only out of the writings of Moses, but also out of\n     those of the (pagan) poets, by falsifying them. For he gives an\n     allegorical interpretation of the wooden horse, and Helen with the\n     torch, and a number of other things, which he metamorphoses and\n     weaves into fictions concerning himself and his Thought.\n\n     And he said that the latter was the \"lost sheep,\" who again and\n     again abiding in women throws the Powers in the world into\n     confusion, on account of her unsurpassable beauty; on account of\n     which the Trojan War came to pass through her. For this Thought\n     took up its abode in the Helen that was born just at that time, and\n     thus when all the Powers laid claim to her, there arose faction and\n     war among those nations to whom she was manifested.\n\n     It was thus, forsooth, that Stesichorus was deprived of sight when\n     he abused her in his verses; and afterwards when he repented and\n     wrote the recantation in which he sung her praises he recovered his\n     sight.\n\n     And subsequently, when her body was changed by the Angels and lower\n     Powers--which also, he says, made the world--she lived in a brothel\n     in Tyre, a city of Phoenicia, where he found her on his arrival.\n     For he professes that he had come there for the purpose of finding\n     her for the first time, that he might deliver her from bondage. And\n     after he had purchased her freedom he took her about with him,\n     pretending that she was the \"lost sheep,\" and that he himself was\n     the Power which is over all. Whereas the impostor having fallen in\n     love with this strumpet, called Helen, purchased and kept her, and\n     being ashamed to have it known by his disciples, invented this\n     story.\n\n     And those who copy the vagabond magician Simon do like acts, and\n     pretend that intercourse should be promiscuous, saying: \"All soil\n     is soil, and it matters not where a man sows, so long as he does\n     sow.\" Nay, they pride themselves on promiscuous intercourse, saying\n     that this is the \"perfect love,\" citing the text, \"the holy shall\n     be sanctified by the ... of the holy.\"[38] And they profess that\n     they are not in the power of that which is usually considered evil,\n     for they are redeemed. For by purchasing the freedom of Helen, he\n     (Simon) thus offered salvation to men by knowledge peculiar to\n     himself.[39]\n\n     For he said that, as the Angels were misgoverning the world owing\n     to their love of power, he had come to set things right, being\n     metamorphosed and made like unto the Dominions, Principalities and\n     Angels, so that he was manifested as a man although he was not\n     really a man, and that he seemed to suffer[40] in Judaea, although\n     he did not really undergo it, but that he was manifested to the\n     Jews as the Son, in Samaria as the Father, and among the other\n     nations as the Holy Ghost, and that he permitted himself to be\n     called by whatever name men pleased to call him. And that it was by\n     the Angels, who made the world, that the Prophets were inspired to\n     utter their prophecies. Wherefore they who believe on Simon and\n     Helen pay no attention to the latter even to this day, but do\n     everything they like, as being free, for they contend that they are\n     saved through his (Simon's) grace.\n\n     For (they assert that) there is no cause for punishment if a man\n     does ill, for evil is not in nature but in institution. For, he\n     says, the Angels who made the world, instituted what they wished,\n     thinking by such words to enslave all who listened to them. Whereas\n     the dissolution of the world, they (the Simonians) say, is for the\n     ransoming of their own people.\n\n     20. And (Simon's) disciples perform magical ceremonies and (use)\n     incantations, and philtres and spells, and they also send what are\n     called \"dream-sending\" daemons for disturbing whom they will. They\n     also train what are called \"familiars,\"[41] and have a statue of\n     Simon in the form of Zeus, and one of Helen in the form of Athena,\n     which they worship, calling the former Lord and the latter Lady.\n     And if any among them on seeing the images, calls them by the name\n     of Simon or Helen, he is cast out as one ignorant of the mysteries.\n\n     While this Simon was leading many astray by his magic rites in\n     Samaria, he was confuted by the apostles. And being cursed, as it\n     is written in the _Acts_, in dissatisfaction took to these schemes.\n     And at last he travelled to Rome and again fell in with the\n     apostles, and Peter had many encounters with him for he continued\n     leading numbers astray by his magic. And towards the end of his\n     career going ... he settled under a plane tree and continued his\n     teachings. And finally running the risk of exposure through the\n     length of his stay, he said, that if he were buried alive, he would\n     rise again on the third day. And he did actually order a grave to\n     be dug by his disciples and told them to bury him. So they carried\n     out his orders, but he has stopped away[42] until the present day,\n     for he was not the Christ.\n\nvi. Origenes (_Contra Celsum_, i. 57; v. 62; vi. 11). Text (edidit\nCarol. Henric. Eduard); Lommatzsch; Berolini, 1846.\n\n     i. 57. And Simon also, the Samaritan magician, endeavoured to steal\n     away certain by his magic. And at that time he succeeded in\n     deceiving them, but in our own day I do not think it possible to\n     find thirty Simonians altogether in the inhabited world. And\n     probably I have said more than they really are. There are a very\n     few of them round Palestine; but in the rest of the world his name\n     is nowhere to be found in the sense of the doctrine he wished to\n     spread broadcast concerning himself. And alongside of the reports\n     about him, we have the account from the _Acts_. And they who say\n     these things about him are Christians and their clear witness is\n     that Simon was nothing divine.\n\n     v. 62. Then pouring out a quantity of our names, he (Celsus) says\n     he knows certain Simonians who are called Heleniani, because they\n     worship Helen or a teacher Helenus. But Celsus is ignorant that the\n     Simonians in no way confess that Jesus is the Son of God, but they\n     say that Simon is the Power of God, telling some marvellous stories\n     about the fellow, who thought that if he laid claim to like powers\n     as those which he thought Jesus laid claim to, he also would be as\n     powerful among men as Jesus is with many.\n\n     vi. 11. For the former (Simon) pretended he was the Power of God,\n     which is called Great, and the latter (Dositheus) that he too was\n     the Son of God. For nowhere in the world do the Simonians any\n     longer exist. Moreover by getting many under his influence Simon\n     took away from his disciples the danger of death, which Christians\n     were taught was taken away, teaching them that there was no\n     difference between it and idolatry. And yet in the beginning the\n     Simonians were not plotted against. For the evil daemon who plots\n     against the teaching of Jesus, knew that no counsel of his own\n     would be undone by the disciples of Simon.\n\nvii. Philastrius (_De Haeresibus_, i). Text: _Patres Quarti Ecclesiae\nSaeculi_ (edidit D.A.B. Caillau); Paris, 1842.\n\n     Now after the passion of Christ, our Lord, and his ascension into\n     heaven, there arose a certain Simon, the magician, a Samaritan by\n     birth, from a village called Gittha, who having the leisure\n     necessary for the arts of magic deceived many, saying that he was\n     some Power of God, above all powers. Whom the Samaritans worship as\n     the Father, and wickedly extol as the founder of their heresy, and\n     strive to exalt him with many praises. Who having been baptized by\n     the blessed apostles, went back from their faith, and disseminated\n     a wicked and pernicious heresy, saying that he was transformed\n     supposedly, that is to say like a shadow, and thus he had suffered,\n     although, he says, he did not suffer.\n\n     And he also dared to say that the world had been made by Angels,\n     and the Angels again had been made by certain endowed with\n     perception from heaven, and that they (the Angels) had deceived the\n     human race.\n\n     He asserted, moreover, that there was a certain other Thought, who\n     descended into the world for the salvation of men; he says she was\n     that Helen whose story is celebrated in the Trojan War by the\n     vain-glorious poets. And the Powers, he says, led on by desire of\n     this Helen, stirred up sedition. \"For she,\" he says, \"arousing\n     desire in those Powers, and appearing in the form of a woman, could\n     not re\u00e4scend into heaven, because the Powers which were in heaven\n     did not permit her to reascend.\" Moreover, she looked for another\n     Power, that is to say, the presence of Simon himself, which would\n     come and free her.\n\n     The wooden horse also, which the vain-glorious poets say was in the\n     Trojan War, he asserted was allegorical, namely, that that\n     mechanical invention typified the ignorance of all the impious\n     nations, although it is well known that that Helen, who was with\n     the magician, was a prostitute from Tyre, and that this same Simon,\n     the magician, had followed her, and together with her had practised\n     various magic arts and committed divers crimes.\n\n     But after he had fled from the blessed Peter from the city of\n     Jerusalem, and came to Rome, and contended there with the blessed\n     apostle before the Emperor Nero, he was routed on every point by\n     the speech of the blessed apostle, and being smitten by an angel\n     came by a righteous end in order that the glaring falsity of his\n     magic might be made known unto all men.\n\nviii. Epiphanius (_Contra Haereses_, ii. 1-6). Text: _Opera_ (edidit G.\nDindorfius); Lipsiae, 1859.\n\n     1. From the time of Christ to our own day the first heresy was that\n     of Simon the magician, and though it was not correctly and\n     distinctly one of the Christian name, yet it worked great havoc by\n     the corruption it produced among Christians. This Simon was a\n     sorcerer, and the base of his operations was at Gittha, a city in\n     Samaria, which still exists as a village. And he deluded the\n     Samaritan people with magical phenomena, deluding and enticing them\n     with a bait by saying that he was the Great Power of God and had\n     come down from above. And he told the Samaritans that he was the\n     Father, and the Jews that he was the Son, and that in undergoing\n     the passion he had not really done so, but that it was only in\n     appearance. And he ingratiated himself with the apostles, was\n     baptized by Philip with many others, and received the same rite as\n     the rest. And all except himself awaited the arrival of the great\n     apostles and by the laying on of their hands received the Holy\n     Spirit, for Philip, being a deacon, had not the power of laying on\n     of hands to grant thereby the gift of the Holy Spirit. But Simon,\n     with wicked heart and erroneous calculations, persisted in his base\n     and mercenary covetousness, without abandoning in any way his\n     miserable pursuits, and offered money to Peter, the apostle, for\n     the power of bestowing the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands,\n     calculating that he would give little, and that for the little (he\n     gave), by bestowing the Spirit on many, he would amass a large sum\n     of money and make a profit.\n\n     2. So with his mind in a vile state through the devilish illusions\n     produced by his magic, and weaving all kinds of images, and being\n     ever ready of his own villany to show his barbaric and demoniacal\n     tricks by means of his charms, he came forward publicly and under\n     the cloak of the name of Christ; and pretending that he was mixing\n     hellebore[43] with honey, he added a poison for those whom he\n     hunted into his mischievous illusion, under the cloak of the name\n     of Christ, and compassed the death of those who believed. And being\n     lewd in nature and goaded on through shame of his promises, the\n     vagabond fabricated a corrupt allegory for those whom he had\n     deceived. For picking up a roving woman, called Helen, who\n     originated from the city of the Tyrians, he took her about with\n     him, without letting people know that he was on terms of undue\n     intimacy with her; and when he was involved in bursting disgrace\n     because of his mistress, he started a fabulous kind of\n     psychopompy[44] for his disciples, and saying, forsooth, that he\n     was the Great Power of God, he ventured to call his prostitute\n     companion the Holy Spirit, and he says that it was on her account\n     he descended. \"And in each heaven I changed my form,\" he says, \"in\n     order that I might not be perceived by my Angelic Powers, and\n     descend to my Thought, which is she who is called Prun\u00eecus[45] and\n     Holy Spirit, through whom I brought into being the Angels, and the\n     Angels brought into being the world and men.\" (He claimed) that\n     this was the Helen of old, on whose account the Trojans and Greeks\n     went to war. And he related a myth with regard to these matters,\n     that this Power descending from above changed its form, and that it\n     was about this that the poets spake allegorically. And through this\n     Power from above--which they call Prun\u00eecus, and which is called by\n     other sects Barbero or Barbelo--displaying her beauty, she drove\n     them to frenzy, and on this account was she sent for the despoiling\n     of the Rulers who brought the world into being; and the Angels\n     themselves went to war on her account; and while she experienced\n     nothing, they set to work to mutually slaughter each other on\n     account of the desire which she infused into them for herself. And\n     constraining her so that she could not re\u00e4scend, each had\n     intercourse with her in every body of womanly and female\n     constitution--she re\u00efncarnating from female bodies into different\n     bodies, both of the human kingdom, and of beasts and other\n     things--in order that by means of their slaying and being slain,\n     they might bring about a diminution of themselves through the\n     shedding of blood, and that then she by collecting again the Power\n     would be enabled to re\u00e4scend into heaven.\n\n     3. And she it was at that time who was possessed by the Greeks and\n     Trojans; and that both in the night of time before the world\n     existed, and after its existence, by the invisible Powers she had\n     wrought things of a like nature. \"And she it is who is now with me,\n     and on her account have I descended. And she was looking for my\n     coming. For she is the Thought,[46] called Helen in Homer.\" And it\n     was on this account that Homer was compelled to portray her as\n     standing on a tower, and by means of a torch revealing to the\n     Greeks the plot of the Phrygians. And by the torch, he delineated,\n     as I said, the manifestation of the light from above. On which\n     account also the wooden horse in Homer was devised, which the\n     Greeks think was made for a distinct purpose, whereas the sorcerer\n     maintained that this is the ignorance of the Gentiles, and that\n     like as the Phrygians when they dragged it along in ignorance drew\n     on their own destruction, so also the Gentiles, that is to say\n     people who are \"without my wisdom,\" through ignorance, draw ruin on\n     themselves. Moreover the impostor said that Athena again was\n     identical with what they called Thought, making use forsooth of the\n     words of the holy apostle Paul--changing the truth into his own\n     lie--to wit: \"Put on the breastplate of faith and the helmet of\n     salvation, and the greaves and sword and buckler\";[47] and that all\n     this was in the mimes of Philistion,[48] the rogue!--words uttered\n     by the apostle with firm reasoning and faith of holy conversation,\n     and the power of the divine and heavenly word--turning them further\n     into a joke and nothing more. For what does he say? That he\n     (Philistion) arranged all these things in a mysterious manner into\n     types of Athena. Wherefore again, in making known the woman with\n     him whom he had taken from Tyre and who had the same name as Helen\n     of old, he spoke as I have told you above, calling her by all those\n     names, Thought, and Athena, and Helen and the rest. \"And on her\n     account,\" he says, \"I descended. And this is the 'lost sheep'\n     written of in the Gospel.\" Moreover, he left to his followers an\n     image, his own presumably, and they worship it under the form of\n     Zeus; and he left another in like manner of Helen in the guise of\n     Athena, and his dupes worship them.\n\n     4. And he enjoined mysteries of obscenity and--to set it forth more\n     seriously--of the sheddings of bodies, _emissionum virorom,\n     feminarum menstruorum_, and that they should be gathered up for\n     mysteries in a most filthy collection; that these were the\n     mysteries of life, and of the most perfect Gn\u00f4sis--a practice which\n     anyone who has understanding from God would most naturally consider\n     to be most filthy conduct and death rather than life. And he\n     supposes names for the Dominions and Principalities, and says there\n     are different heavens, and sets forth Powers for each firmament and\n     heaven, and tricks them out with barbarous names, and says that no\n     man can be saved in any other fashion than by learning this\n     mystagogy, and how to offer such sacrifices to the Universal Father\n     through these Dominions and Principalities. And he says that this\n     world (aeon) was constructed defectively by Dominions and\n     Principalities of evil. And he considers that corruption and\n     destruction are of the flesh alone, but that there is a\n     purification of souls and that, only if they are established in\n     initiation by means of his misleading Gn\u00f4sis. This is the beginning\n     of the so-called Gnostics. And he pretended that the Law was not of\n     God, but of the left-hand Power, and that the Prophets were not\n     from the Good God but from this or the other Power. And he lays it\n     down for each of them as he pleases: the Law was of one, David of\n     another, Isaiah of another, Ezekiel again of another, and ascribes\n     each of the Prophets to some one Dominion. And all of them were\n     from the left-hand Power and outside the Perfection,[49] and every\n     one that believed in the _Old Testament_ was subject to death.\n\n     5. But this doctrine is overturned by the truth itself. For if he\n     were the Great Power of God, and the harlot with him the Holy\n     Spirit, as he himself says, let him say what is the name of the\n     Power or in what word[50] he discovered the epithet for the woman\n     and nothing for himself at all. And how and at what time is he\n     found at Rome successively paying back his debt, when in the midst\n     of the city of the Romans the miserable fellow fell down and died?\n     And in what scripture did Peter prove to him that he had neither\n     lot nor share in the heritage of the fear of God? And could the\n     world not have its existence in the Good God, when all the good\n     were chosen by him? And how could it be a left-hand Power which\n     spake in the Law and Prophets, when it has preached the coming of\n     the Christ, the Good God, and forbids mean things? And how could\n     there not be one divine nature and the same spirit of the _New_ and\n     _Old Testament_, when the Lord said: \"I am not come to destroy the\n     Law, but to fulfil it\"?[51] And that He might show that the Law was\n     declared through Him and was given through Moses, and that the\n     grace of the Gospel has been preached through himself and his\n     carnal presence, He said to the Jews: \"If ye believe Moses, ye\n     should also believe me; for he wrote about me.\"[52] There are many\n     other arguments also to oppose to the contention of the sorcerer.\n     For how will obscene things give life, if it were not a conception\n     of daemons? When the Lord himself answers in the Gospel to those\n     who say unto him: \"If such is the case of the man and the woman, it\n     is not good to marry.\" But He said unto them: \"All do not hold\n     this; for there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the\n     sake of the kingdom of the heavens.\"[53] And He showed that\n     natural abstinence from union is the gift of the kingdom of the\n     heavens; and again in another place He says with respect to\n     righteous marriage--which Simon of his own accord basely corrupting\n     treats according to his own desires--\"Whom God has joined together\n     let no man put asunder.\"[54]\n\n     6. And how unaware is again the vagabond that he confutes himself\n     by his own babbling, not knowing what he gives out? For after\n     saying that the Angels were produced by him through his Thought, he\n     goes on to say that he changed his form in every heaven, to escape\n     their notice in his descent. Consequently he avoided them through\n     fear. And how did the babbler fear the Angels whom he had himself\n     made? And how will not the dissemination of his error be found by\n     the intelligent to be instantly refuted by everyone, when the\n     scripture says: \"In the beginning[55] God made the heaven and the\n     earth\"?[56] And in unison with this word, the Lord in the Gospel\n     says, as though to his own Father: \"O Father, Lord of heaven and\n     earth.\"[57] If, therefore, the maker of heaven and earth is\n     naturally God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, all that the\n     slanderer Simon says is vain; to wit, the defective production of\n     the world by the Angels, and all the rest he has babbled about in\n     addition to his world of Daemons, and he has deceived those who\n     have been led away by him.\n\nix. Hieronymus (In _Matthaeum_, IV. xxiv. 5). Text: _S. Eusebii\nHieronymi Comment._; Migne _Patrol. Grec._, VII. col. 176.\n\n     Of whom there is one Simon, a Samaritan, whom we read of in the\n     _Acts of the Apostles_, who said he was some Great Power. And among\n     the rest of the things written in his volumes, he proclaimed as\n     follows:\n\n     \"I am the Word of God; I am the glorious one, I the Paraclete, the\n     Almighty, I the whole of God.\"\n\nx. Theodoretus _(Haereticarum Fabularum Compendium_, I. i.). Text: _Opera\nOmnia_ (ex recensione Jacobi Simondi, denuo edidit Joann. Ludov.\nSchulze); Halae, 1769.\n\n     Now Simon, the Samaritan magician, was the first minister of his\n     (the Daemon's)[58] evil practices who arose. Who, making his base\n     of operations from Gittha, which is a village of Samaria, and\n     having rushed to the height of sorcery, at first persuaded many,\n     by the wonder-working he wrought, to attend his school, and call\n     him some divine Power. But afterwards seeing the apostles\n     accomplishing wonder-workings that were really true and divine, and\n     bestowing on those who came to them the grace of the Spirit,\n     thinking himself also worthy to receive equal power from them, when\n     great Peter detected his villainous intention, and bade him heal\n     the incurable wounds of his mind with the drugs of repentance, he\n     immediately returned to his former evil-doing, and leaving Samaria,\n     since it had received the seeds of salvation, ran off to those who\n     had not yet been tilled by the apostles, in order that, having\n     deceived with his magic arts those who were easy to capture, and\n     having enslaved them in the bonds of their own legendary lore,[59]\n     he might make the teachings of the apostles difficult to be\n     believed.\n\n     But the divine grace armed great Peter against the fellow's\n     madness. For following after him, he dispelled his abominable\n     teaching like mist and darkness, and showed forth the rays of the\n     light of truth. But for all that the thrice wretched fellow, in\n     spite of his public exposure, did not cease from his working\n     against the truth, until he came to Rome, in the reign of Claudius\n     Caesar. And he so astonished the Romans with his sorceries that he\n     was honoured with a brazen pillar. But on the arrival of the divine\n     Peter, he stripped him naked of his wings of deception, and\n     finally, having challenged him to a contest in wonder-working, and\n     having shown the difference between the divine grace and sorcery,\n     in the presence of the assembled Romans, caused him to fall\n     headlong from a great height by his prayers and captured the\n     eye-witnesses of the wonder for salvation.\n\n     This (Simon) gave birth to a legend somewhat as follows. He started\n     with supposing some Boundless Power; and he called this the\n     Universal Root.[60] And he said that this was Fire, which had a\n     twofold energy, the manifested and the concealed. The world\n     moreover was generable, and had been generated from the manifested\n     energy of the Fire. And first from it (the manifested energy) were\n     emanated three pairs, which he also called Roots. And the first\n     (pair) he called Mind and Thought, and the second, Voice and\n     Intelligence, and the third, Reason and Reflection. Whereas he\n     called himself the Boundless Power, and (said) that he had appeared\n     to the Jews as the Son, and to the Samaritans he had descended as\n     the Father, and among the rest of the nations he had gone up and\n     down as the Holy Spirit.\n\n     And having made a certain harlot, who was called Helen, live with\n     him, he pretended that she was his first Thought, and called her\n     the Universal Mother, (saying) that through her he had made both\n     the Angels and Archangels; and that the world was fabricated by the\n     Angels. Then the Angels in envy cast her down among them, for they\n     did not wish, he says, to be called fabrications. For which cause,\n     forsooth, they induced her into many female bodies and into that of\n     the famous Helen, through whom the Trojan War arose.\n\n     It was on her account also, he said, that he himself had descended,\n     to free her from the chains they had laid upon her, and to offer to\n     men salvation through a system of knowledge peculiar to himself.\n\n     And that in his descent he had undergone transformation, so as not\n     to be known to the Angels that manage the establishment of the\n     world. And that he had appeared in Judaea as a man, although he was\n     not a man, and that he had suffered, though not at all suffering,\n     and that the Prophets were the ministers of the Angels. And he\n     admonished those that believed on him not to pay attention to them,\n     and not to tremble at the threats of the Law, but, as being free,\n     to do whatever they would. For it was not by good actions, but by\n     grace they would gain salvation.\n\n     For which cause, indeed, those of his association ventured on every\n     kind of licentiousness, and practised every kind of magic,\n     fabricating love philtres and spells, and all the other arts of\n     sorcery, as though in pursuit of divine mysteries. And having\n     prepared his (Simon's) statue in the form of Zeus, and Helen's in\n     the likeness of Athena, they burn incense and pour out libations\n     before them, and worship them as gods, calling themselves\n     Simonians.\n\n\nIII.--_The Simon of the Legends_.\n\n\nThe so-called Clementine Literature:\n\nA. _Recognitiones_. Text: Rufino Aquilei Presb. Interprete (curante E.G.\nGersdorf); Lipsiae, 1838.\n\n_Homiliae_. Text: _Bibliotheca Patrum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum\nSelecta_, Vol. I. (edidit Albertus Schwegler); Tubingensis, Stuttgartiae,\n1847.\n\nB. _Constitutiones_. Text: _SS. Patrum qui Temporibus Apostolicis\nFloruerunt Opera_ (edidit J.B. Cotelerius); Amsteladami, 1724.\n\nA. The priority of the two varying accounts, in the _Homilies_ and\n_Recognitiones_, of the same story is in much dispute, but this is a\nquestion of no importance in the present enquiry. The latest scholarship\nis of the opinion that \"the Clementines are unmistakably a production of\nthe sect of the Ebionites.\"[61] The Ebionites are described as:\n\n     A sect of heretics developed from among the Judaizing Christians of\n     apostolic times late in the first or early in the second century.\n     They accepted Christianity only as a reformed Judaism, and believed\n     in our Blessed Lord only as a mere natural man spiritually\n     perfected by exact observance of the Mosaic law.[62]\n\nSummary.[63] Clement, the hero of the legendary narrative, arrives at\nCaesarea Stratonis in Judaea, on the eve of a great controversy between\nSimon and the apostle Peter, and attaches himself to the latter as his\ndisciple (H. II. xv; R.I. lxxvii). The history of Simon is told to\nClement, in the presence of Peter, by Aquila and Nicetas--the adopted\nsons of a convert--who had associated with Simon.\n\nSimon was the son of Antonius and Rachael, a Samaritan of Gittha, a\nvillage six schoeni[64] from the city of Caesarea (H.I. xxii), called a\nvillage of the Gettones (R. II. vii). It was at Alexandria that Simon\nperfected his studies in magic, being an adherent of John, a\nHemero-baptist,[65] through whom he came to deal with religious\ndoctrines.\n\nJohn was the forerunner of Jesus, according to the method of combination\nor coupling.[66] Whereas Jesus had twelve disciples, as the Sun, John,\nthe Moon, had thirty, the number of days in a lunation, or more\ncorrectly twenty-nine and a half, one of his disciples being a woman\ncalled Helen, and a woman being reckoned as half a man in the perfect\nnumber of the Triacontad, or Pler\u00f4ma of the Aeons (H.I. xxiii; R. II.\nviii). In the _Recognitions_ the name of Helen is given as Luna in the\nLatin translation of Rufinus.[67]\n\nOf all John's disciples, Simon was the favourite, but on the death of\nhis master, he was absent in Alexandria, and so Dositheus,[68] a\nco-disciple, was chosen head of the school.\n\nSimon, on his return, acquiesced in the choice, but his superior\nknowledge could not long remain under a bushel. One day Dositheus,\nbecoming enraged, struck at Simon with his staff; but the staff passed\nthrough Simon's body like smoke, and Dositheus, struck with amazement,\nyielded the leadership to Simon and became his disciple, and shortly\nafterwards died (H.I. xxiv; R. II. xiii).\n\nAquila and Nicetas then go on to tell how Simon had confessed to them\nprivately his love for Luna (R. II. viii), and narrate the magic\nachievements possessed by Simon, of which they have had proof with their\nown eyes. Simon can dig through mountains, pass through rocks as if they\nwere merely clay, cast himself from a lofty mountain and be borne gently\nto earth, can break his chains when in prison, and cause the doors to\nopen of their own accord, animate statues and make the eye-witness think\nthem men, make trees grow suddenly, pass through fire unhurt, change his\nface or become double-faced, or turn into a sheep or goat or serpent,\nmake a beard grow upon a boy's chin, fly in the air, become gold, make\nand unmake kings, have divine worship and honours paid him, order a\nsickle to go and reap of itself and it reaps ten times as much as an\nordinary sickle (R. II. xi).\n\nTo this list of wonders the _Homilies_ add making stones into loaves,\nmelting iron, the production of images of all kinds at a banquet; in his\nown house dishes are brought of themselves to him (H.I. xxxii). He makes\nspectres appear in the market place; when he walks out statues move, and\nshadows go before him which he says are souls of the dead (H. IV. iv).\n\nOn one occasion Aquila says he was present when Luna was seen looking\nout of all the windows of a tower on all sides at once (R. II. xi).\n\nThe most peculiar incident, however, is the use Simon is said to have\nmade of the soul of a dead boy, by which he did many of his wonders. The\nincident is found in both accounts, but more fully in the _Homilies_ (I.\nxxv-xxx) than in the _Recognitions_ (II. xiii-xv), for which reason the\ntext of the former is followed.\n\nSimon did not stop at murder, as he confessed to Nicetas and Aquila \"as\na friend to friends.\" In fact he separated the soul of a boy from his\nbody to act as a confederate in his phenomena. And this is the magical\n_modus operandi_. \"He delineates the boy on a statue which he keeps\nconsecrated in the inner part of the house where he sleeps, and he says\nthat after he has fashioned him out of the air by certain divine\ntransmutations, and has sketched his form, he returns him again to the\nair.\"\n\nSimon explains the theory of this practice as follows:\n\n\"First of all the spirit of the man having been turned into the nature\nof heat draws in and absorbs, like a cupping-glass, the surrounding air;\nnext he turns the air which comes within the envelope of spirit into\nwater. And the air in it not being able to escape owing to the confining\nforce of the spirit, he changed it into the nature of blood, and the\nblood solidifying made flesh; and so when the flesh is solidified he\nexhibited a man made of air and not of earth. And thus having persuaded\nhimself of his ability to make a new man of air, he reversed the\ntransmutations, he said, and returned him to the air.\"\n\nWhen the converts thought that this was the soul of the person, Simon\nlaughed and said, that in the phenomena it was not the soul, \"but some\ndaemon[69] who pretended to be the soul that took possession of people.\"\n\nThe coming controversy with Simon is then explained by Peter to Clement\nto rest on certain passages of scripture. Peter admits that there are\nfalsehoods in the scriptures, but says that it would never do to explain\nthis to the people. These falsehoods have been permitted for certain\nrighteous reasons (H. III. v).\n\n\"For the scriptures declare all manner of things that no one of those\nwho enquire unthankfully may discover the truth, but (simply) what he\nwishes to find\" (H. III. x).\n\nIn the lengthy explanation which follows, however, on the passages Simon\nis going to bring forward, such as the mention of a plurality of gods,\nand God's hardening men's hearts, Peter states that in reality all the\npassages which speak against God are spurious additions, but this is to\nbe guarded as an esoteric secret.\n\nNevertheless in the public controversy which follows, this secret is\nmade public property, in order to meet Simon's declaration: \"I say that\nthere are many gods, but one God of all these gods, incomprehensible and\nunknown to all\" (R. II. xxxviii); and again: \"My belief is that there is\na Power of immeasurable and ineffable Light, whose greatness is held to\nbe incomprehensible, a power which the maker of the world even does not\nknow, nor does Moses the lawgiver, nor your master Jesus\" (R. II. xlix).\n\nA point of interest to be noticed is that Peter challenges Simon to\nsubstantiate his statements by quotations either from the scriptures of\nthe Jews, or from some they had not heard of, or from those of the\nGreeks, or from _his own_ scriptures (R. II. xxxviii).\n\nSimon argues that finding the God of the Law imperfect, he concludes\nthis is not the supreme God. After a wordy harangue of Peter, Simon is\nsaid to have been worsted by Peter's threatening to go to Simon's\nbed-chamber and question the soul of the murdered boy. Simon flies to\nTyre (H.) or Tripolis (R.), and Peter determines to pursue him among the\nGentiles.\n\nThe two accounts here become exceedingly contradictory and confused.\nAccording to the _Homilies_, Simon flees from Tyre to Tripolis, and\nthence further to Syria. The main dispute takes place at Laodicaea on the\nunity of God (XVI. i). Simon appeals to the _Old Testament_ to show that\nthere are many gods (XVI. iv); shows that the scriptures contradict\nthemselves (XVI. ix); accuses Peter of using magic and teaching\ndoctrines different to those taught by Christ (XVII. ii-iv); asserts\nthat Jesus is not consistent with himself (XVII. v); that the maker of\nthe world is not the highest God (XVIII. i); and declares the Ineffable\nDeity (XVIII. iv).[70] Peter of course refutes him (XVIII. xii-xiv), and\nSimon retires.\n\nThe last incident of interest takes place at Antioch. Simon stirs up the\npeople against Peter by representing him as an impostor. Friends of\nPeter set the authorities on Simon's track, and he has to flee. At\nLaodicaea he meets Faustinianus (R.), or Faustus (H.), the father of\nClement, who rebukes him (H. XIX. xxiv); and so he changes the face of\nFaustinianus into an exact likeness of his own that he may be taken in\nhis place (H. XX. xii; R.X. liii). Peter sends the transformed\nFaustinianus to Antioch, who, in the guise of Simon, makes a confession\nof imposture and testifies to the divine mission of Peter. Peter\naccordingly enters Antioch in triumph.\n\nThe story of Simon in the _Apostolic Constitutions_ is short and taken\nfrom the _Acts_, and to some extent from the Clementines, finishing up,\nhowever, with the mythical death of Simon at Rome, owing to the prayers\nof Peter. Simon is here said to be conducted by daemons and to have\nflown ([Greek: hiptato]) upwards. The details of this magical feat are\ngiven variously elsewhere.[71]\n\nThe only point of real interest is a vague reference to Simonian\nliterature (VI. xvi), in a passage which runs as follows:\n\n     For we know that the followers of Simon and Cleobius having\n     composed poisonous books in the name of Christ and his disciples,\n     carry them about for the deception of you who have loved Christ and\n     us his servants.[72]\n\nSo end the most important of the legends. To these, however, must be\nadded others of a like nature of which the scene of action is laid at\nRome in the time of Nero.[73] I have not thought it worth while to refer\nto the original texts for these utterly apocryphal and unauthenticated\nstories, but simply append a very short digest from the excellent\nsummary of Dr. Salmon, the Regius Professor of Divinity in Dublin\nUniversity, as given in Smith and Wace's _Dictionary of Christian\nBiography_.[74]\n\nThe Greek _Acts of Peter and Paul_ give details of the conflict and\nrepresent both apostles as having taken part in it. Simon and Peter are\neach required to raise a dead body to life. Simon, by his magic, makes\nthe head move, but as soon as he leaves the body it again becomes\nlifeless. Peter, however, by his prayers effects a real resurrection.\nBoth are challenged to divine what the other is planning. Peter prepares\nblessed bread, and takes the emperor into the secret. Simon cannot guess\nwhat Peter has been doing, and so raises hell-hounds who rush on Peter,\nbut the presentation of the blessed bread causes them to vanish.\n\nIn the _Acts of Nereus and Achilleus_,[75] another version of the story\nis given. Simon had fastened a great dog at his door in order to prevent\nPeter entering. Peter by making the sign of the cross renders the dog\ntame towards himself, but so furious against his master Simon that the\nlatter had to leave the city in disgrace.\n\nSimon, however, still retains the emperor's favour by his magic power.\nHe pretends to permit his head to be cut off, and by the power of\nglamour appears to be decapitated, while the executioner really cuts off\nthe head of a ram.\n\nThe last act of the drama is the erection of a wooden tower in the\nCampus Martius, and Simon is to ascend to heaven in a chariot of fire.\nBut, through the prayers of Peter, the two daemons who were carrying him\naloft let go their hold and so Simon perishes miserably.\n\nDr. Salmon connects this with the story, told by Suetonius[76] and Dio\nChrysostom,[77] that Nero caused a wooden theatre to be erected in the\nCampus, and that a gymnast who tried to play the part of Icarus fell so\nnear the emperor as to bespatter him with blood.\n\nSo much for these motley stories; here and there instructive, but mostly\nabsurd. I shall now endeavour to sift out the rubbish from this\npatristic and legendary heap, and perhaps we shall find more of value\nthan at present appears.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 1: Smith's _Dictionary of the Bible_, art. \"Acts of the\nApostles.\"]\n\n[Footnote 2: _Ibid._]\n\n[Footnote 3: Lit. powers.]\n\n[Footnote 4: The Romans.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Claudius was the fourth of the Caesars, and reigned from\nA.D. 41-54.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Lit., stood on a roof; an Eastern metaphor.]\n\n[Footnote 7: The technical term for this transmigration, used by\nPythagoreans and others, is [Greek: metangismos], the pouring of water\nfrom one vessel ([Greek: angos]) into another.]\n\n[Footnote 8: This famous lyric poet, whose name was Tisias, and\nhonorific title Stesichorus, was born about the middle of the seventh\ncentury B.C., in Sicily. The story of his being deprived of sight by\nCastor and Pollux for defaming their sister Helen is mentioned by many\nclassical writers. The most familiar quotation is the Horatian (_Ep._\nxvii. 42-44):\n\n    Infamis Helenae Castor offensus vicem\n    Fraterque magni Castoris victi prece.\n    Adempta vati redidere lumina.\n\n[Footnote 9: That is to say, the heretics.]\n\n[Footnote 10: In a preceding part of the book against the \"Magicians.\"]\n\n[Footnote 11: _Deuteronomy_, iv. 24.]\n\n[Footnote 12: Heracleitus of Ephesus flourished about the end of the\nsixth century B.C. He was named the obscure from the difficulty of his\nwritings.]\n\n[Footnote 13: I put the few direct quotations we have from Simon in\nitalics.]\n\n[Footnote 14: _Isaiah_, v. 7.]\n\n[Footnote 15: _I Peter_, i. 24.]\n\n[Footnote 16: Empedocles of Agrigentum, in Sicily, flourished about B.C.\n444.]\n\n[Footnote 17: [Greek: phronaesis], consciousness?]\n\n[Footnote 18: Syzygies.]\n\n[Footnote 19: _Isaiah_, i. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 20: _I Corinth._, xi. 32.]\n\n[Footnote 21: [Greek: to maeketi ginomenon.]]\n\n[Footnote 22: See _Jeremiah_, i. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 23: _Genesis_, ii, 10.]\n\n[Footnote 24: Veins and arteries are said not to have been distinguished\nby ancient physiologists.]\n\n[Footnote 25: A lacuna unfortunately occurs here in the text. The\nmissing words probably identified \"that which is commonly called by\neveryone the navel\" with the umbilical cord.]\n\n[Footnote 26: This is omitted by Miller in the first Oxford edition.]\n\n[Footnote 27: _Odyssey_, x. 304, _seqq._]\n\n[Footnote 28: [Greek: logos].]\n\n[Footnote 29: Cf. _Isaiah_, ii. 4.]\n\n[Footnote 30: Cf. _Luke_, iii. 9.]\n\n[Footnote 31: Or adorning.]\n\n[Footnote 32: _Genesis_, iii. 24.]\n\n[Footnote 33: [Greek: logos]; also reason.]\n\n[Footnote 34: [Greek: antistoichountes]; used in Xenophon (_Ana._ v. 4,\n12) of two bands of dancers facing each other in rows or pairs.]\n\n[Footnote 35: He who has stood, stands and will stand.]\n\n[Footnote 36: Thought.]\n\n[Footnote 37: The Middle Distance.]\n\n[Footnote 38: There is a lacuna in the text here.]\n\n[Footnote 39: [Greek: dia taes idias epignoseos.]]\n\n[Footnote 40: Undergo the passion.]\n\n[Footnote 41: [Greek: paredrous] C.W. King calls these \"Assessors.\"\n(_The Gnostics and their Remains_, p. 70.)]\n\n[Footnote 42: This is presumably meant for a grim patristic joke.]\n\n[Footnote 43: A medicinal drug used by the ancients, especially as a\nspecific against madness.]\n\n[Footnote 44: The conducting of souls to or from the invisible world.]\n\n[Footnote 45: [Greek: prounikos: prouneikos] is one who bears burdens, a\ncarrier; in a bad sense it means lewd.]\n\n[Footnote 46: Or the conception (of the mind).]\n\n[Footnote 47: Cf. 1 _Thess_., v. 8.]\n\n[Footnote 48: A famous actor and mime writer who flourished in the time\nof Augustus (circa A.D. 7); there are extant some doubtful fragments of\nPhilistion containing moral sentiments from the comic poets.]\n\n[Footnote 49: [Greek: plaeroma]]\n\n[Footnote 50: Scripture.]\n\n[Footnote 51: _Matth._, v. 17.]\n\n[Footnote 52: _John_, v. 46, 47.]\n\n[Footnote 53: _Matth._, xix. 10-12.]\n\n[Footnote 54: _Matth._, xix. 6.]\n\n[Footnote 55: [Greek _archae_] the same word is translated \"dominion\"\nwhen applied to the aeons of Simon.]\n\n[Footnote 56: _Genesis_, i. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 57: _Matth._, xi. 25.]\n\n[Footnote 58: \"The all-evil Daemon, the avenger of men,\" of the\nPrologue.]\n\n[Footnote 59: Mythologies.]\n\n[Footnote 60: \"Rootage,\" rather, to coin a word. [Greek: rizoma] must be\ndistinguished from [Greek: riza], a root, the word used a few sentences\nlater.]\n\n[Footnote 61: _Dictionary of Christian Biography_ (Ed. Smith and Wace),\nart. \"Clementine Literature,\" I. 575.]\n\n[Footnote 62: _Dictionary of Sects, Heresies_, etc. (Ed. Blunt), art.\n\"Ebionites.\"]\n\n[Footnote 63: The two accounts are combined in the following digest, and\nin the references H. stands for the _Homiles_ and R. for the\n_Recognitions_.]\n\n[Footnote 64: Some twenty-three miles.]\n\n[Footnote 65: We have little information of the Hemero-baptists, or\nDay-baptists. They are said to have been a sect of the Jews and to have\nbeen so called for daily performing certain ceremonial ablutions\n(Epiph., _Contra Haer._, I. 17). It is conjectured that they were a sect\nof the Pharisees who agreed with the Sadducees in denying the\nresurrection. _The Apostolic Constitutions_ (VI. vii) tell us of the\nHemero-baptists, that \"unless they wash themselves every day they do not\neat, nor will they use a bed, dish, bowl, cup, or seat, unless they have\npurified it with water.\"]\n\n[Footnote 66: [Greek: kata ton taes suzugias logon.]]\n\n[Footnote 67: This has led to the conjecture that the translation was\nmade from the false reading Selene instead of Helene, while Bauer has\nused it to support his theory that Justin and those who have followed\nhim confused the Phoenician worship of solar and lunar divinities of\nsimilar names with the worship of Simon and Helen.]\n\n[Footnote 68: This is not to be confused with the Dositheus of Origen,\nwho claimed to be a Christ, says Matter (_Histoire Critique du\nGnosticisme_, Tom. i. p. 218, n. 1st. ed., 1828).]\n\n[Footnote 69: An elemental.]\n\n[Footnote 70: [Greek: pataer en aporraetois].]\n\n[Footnote 71: Hegesippus (_De Bello Judaico_, iii. 2), Abdias (_Hist._,\ni, towards the end), and Maximus Taurinensis (_Patr. VI. Synodi ad Imp.\nConstant._, Act. 18), say that Simon flew like Icarus; whereas in\nArnobius (_Contra Gentes_, ii) and the Arabic Preface to Council of\nNicaea there is talk of a chariot of fire, or a car that he had\nconstructed.]\n\n[Footnote 72: Cotelerius in a note (i. 347, 348) refers the reader to\nthe passages in the _Recognitions_ and in Jerome's _Commentary on\nMatthew_, which I have already quoted. He also says that the author of\nthe book, _De Divinis Nominibus_ (C. 6), speaks of \"the controversial\nsentences of Simon\" ([Greek: Simonos antirraetikoi logoi]). The author\nis the Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, and I shall quote later on some\nof these sentences, though from a very uncertain source. Cotelerius also\nrefers to the Arabic Preface to the Nicaean Council. The text referred\nto will be found in the Latin translation of Abrahamus Echellensis,\ngiven in Labb\u00e9's _Concilia (Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova Collectio_, edd.\nPhil. Labbaeus et Gabr. Cossartius, S.J., Florentiae, 1759, Tom. ii, p.\n1057, col. 1), and runs as follows:\n\n     \"Those traitors (the Simonians) fabricated for themselves a gospel,\n     which they divided into four books, and called it the 'Book of the\n     Four Angles and Points of the World.' All pursue magic zealously,\n     and defend it, wearing red and rose-coloured threads round the neck\n     in sign of a compact and treaty entered into with the devil their\n     seducer.\"\n\nAs to the books of the followers of Cleobius we have no further\ninformation.]\n\n[Footnote 73: A.D. 54-68.]\n\n[Footnote 74: Art. \"Simon Magus,\" Vol. IV. p. 686.]\n\n[Footnote 75: Bolland, _Acta SS._ May iii. 9.]\n\n[Footnote 76: vi. 12.]\n\n[Footnote 77: _Orat._ xxi. 9.]\n\n\n\n\nPART II.\n\nA REVIEW OF AUTHORITIES.\n\n\nThe student will at once perceive that though the Simon of the _Acts_\nand the Simon of the fathers both retain the two features of the\npossession of magical power and of collision with Peter, the tone of the\nnarratives is entirely different. Though the apostles are naturally\nshown as rejecting with indignation the pecuniary offer of the\nthaumaturge, they display no hate for his personality, whereas the\nfathers depict him as the vilest of impostors and charlatans and hold\nhim up to universal execration. The incident of Simon's offering money\nto Peter is admittedly taken by the fathers from this account, and\ntherefore their repetition in no way corroborates the story. Hence its\nauthenticity rests entirely with the writer of the _Acts_, for Justin,\nwho was a native of Samaria, does not mention it. As the _Acts_ are not\nquoted from prior to A.D. 177, and their writer is only traditionally\nclaimed to be Luke, we may safely consider ourselves in the domain of\nlegend and not of history.\n\nThe same may be said of all the incidents of Simon's career; they\npertain to the region of fable and probably owe their creation to the\nPatristic and Simonian controversies of later ages.\n\nThe Simon of Justin gives us the birthplace of Simon as at Gitta, and\nthe rest of the fathers follow suit with variation of the name. Gitta,\nGittha, Gittoi, Gitthoi, Gitto, Gitton, Gitteh, so run the variants.\nThis, however, is a matter of no great importance, and the little burg\nis said to-day to be called Gittho\u00ef.[78]\n\nThe statement of Justin as to the statue of Simon at Rome with the\ninscription \"SIMONI DEO SANCTO\" has been called in question by every\nscholar since the discovery in 1574 of a large marble fragment in the\nisland of the Tiber bearing the inscription \"SEMONI SANCO DEO FIDIO,\" a\nSabine God. A few, however, think that Justin could not have made so\nglaring a mistake in writing to the Romans, and that if it were a\nmistake Irenaeus would not have copied it. The coincidence, however, is\ntoo striking to bear any other interpretation than that perhaps some\nignorant controversialist had endeavoured to give the legend a\nhistorical appearance, and that Justin had lent a too ready ear to him.\nIt is also to be noticed that Justin tells us that nearly all the\nSamaritans were Simonians.\n\nWe next come to the Simon of Irenaeus which, owing to many similarities,\nis supposed by scholars to have been taken from Justin's account, if not\nfrom the _Apology_, at any rate from Justin's lost work on heresies\nwhich he speaks of in the _Apology_. Or it may be that both borrowed\nfrom some common source now lost to us.\n\nThe story of Helen is here for the first time given. Whether or not\nthere was a Helen we shall probably never know. The \"lost sheep\" was a\nnecessity of every Gnostic system, which taught the descent of the soul\ninto matter. By whatever name called, whether Sophia, Acam\u00f4th, Prun\u00eecus,\nBarb\u00ealo, the glyph of the Magdalene, out of whom seven devils are cast,\nhas yet to be understood, and the mystery of the Christ and the seven\naeons, churches or assemblies (_ecclesiae_), in every man will not be\nwithout significance to every student of Theosophy. These data are\ncommon to all Gnostic aeonology.\n\nIf it is argued that Simon was the first inventor of this aeonology, it\nis astonishing that his name and that of Helen should not have had some\nrecognition in the succeeding systems. If, on the contrary, it is\nmaintained that he used existing materials for his system, and explained\naway his improper connection with Helen by an adaptation of the\nSophia-mythos, it is difficult to understand how such a palpable\nabsurdity could have gained any credence among such cultured adherents\nas the Simonians evidently were. In either case the Gnostic tradition is\nshown to be pre-Christian. Every initiated Gnostic, however, must have\nknown that the mythos referred to the World-Soul in the Cosmos and the\nSoul in man.\n\nThe accounts of the _Acts_ and of Justin and Irenaeus are so confusing\nthat it has been supposed that two Simons are referred to.[79] For if he\nclaimed to be a re\u00efncarnation of Jesus, appearing in Jerusalem as the\nSon, he could not have been contemporary with the apostles. It follows,\ntherefore, that either he made no such claim; or if he made the claim,\nJustin and Irenaeus had such vague information that they confused him\nwith the Simon of the _Acts_; or that the supposition is not\nwell-founded, and Simon was simply inculcating the esoteric doctrine of\nthe various manifestations or descents of one and the same Christ\nprinciple.\n\nThe Simon of Tertullian again is clearly taken from Irenaeus, as the\ncritics are agreed. \"Tertullian evidently knows no more than he read in\nIrenaeus,\" says Dr. Salmon.[80]\n\nIt is only when we come to the Simon of the _Philosophumena_ that we\nfeel on any safe ground. The prior part of it is especially precious on\naccount of the quotations from _The Great Revelation_ ([Greek: hae\nmegalae apophasis]) which we hear of from no other source. The author of\n_Philosophumena_, whoever he was, evidently had access to some of the\nwritings of the Simonians, and here at last we have arrived at any thing\nof real value in our rubbish heap.\n\nIt was not until the year 1842 that Minoides Mynas brought to Paris from\nMount Athos, on his return from a commission given him by the French\nGovernment, a fourteenth-century MS. in a mutilated condition. This was\nthe MS. of our _Philosophumena_ which is supposed to have been the work\nof Hippolytus. The authorship, however, is still uncertain, as will\nappear by what will be said about the Simon of Epiphanius and Philaster.\n\nThe latter part of the section on Simon in the _Philosophumena_ is not\nso important, and is undoubtedly taken from Irenaeus or from the\nanti-heretical treatise of Justin, or from the source from which both\nthese fathers drew. The account of the death of Simon, however, shows\nthat the author was not Hippolytus from whose lost work Epiphanius and\nPhilaster are proved by Lipsius to have taken their accounts.\n\nThe Simon of Origen gives us no new information, except as to the small\nnumber of the Simonians. But like other data in his controversial\nwritings against the Gnostic philosopher Celsus we can place little\nreliance on his statement, for Eusebius Pamphyli writing in A.D. 324-5,\na century afterwards, speaks of the Simonians as still considerable in\nnumbers.[81]\n\nThe Simon of Epiphanius and Philaster leads us to speak of a remarkable\nfeat of scholarship performed by R.A. Lipsius,[82] the learned professor\nof divinity in the university of Jena. From their accounts he has\nreconstructed to some extent a lost work of Hippolytus against heresies\nof which a description was given by Photius. This treatise was founded\non certain discourses of Irenaeus. By comparing Philaster, Epiphanius,\nand the Pseudo-Tertullian, he recovers Hippolytus, and by comparing his\nrestored Hippolytus with Irenaeus he infers a common authority, probably\nthe lost work of Justin Martyr, or, may we suggest, as remarked above,\nthe work from which Justin got his information.[83]\n\nThe Simon of Theodoret differs from that of his predecessor only in one\nor two important details of the aeonology, a fact that has presumably\nled Matter to suppose that he has introduced some later Gnostic ideas\nor confused the teachings of the later Simonians with those of\nSimon.[84]\n\nThe Simon of the legends is so entirely outside any historical\ncriticism, and the stories gleaned from the _Homilies_ and\n_Recognitions_ are so evidently fabrications--most probably added to the\ndoctrinal narrative at a later date--and so obviously the stock-in-trade\nlegends of magic, that not a solitary scholar supports their\nauthenticity. Probably one of the reasons for this is the strong\nEbionism of the narratives, which is by no means palatable to the\northodox taste. In this connection the following table of the Ebionite\nscheme of emanation may be of interest:\n\n                                       GOD.\n                   (The One Being, the Principle of all things.)\n  ______________________________________^___________________________________\n /                                                                          \\\n                 SPIRIT.                              MATTER.\n                    |                           The Four elements.\n                    |                        (This mixture produces)\n                    |                                    |\n                    |                                    |\n                THE SON.                             THE DEVIL.\n    (The Leader of the future cycle.)    (The leader of the present cycle.)\n                    |                                    |\n                    |                                    |\n              GREAT THINGS.                        LITTLE THINGS.\n       (Heaven, light, life, etc.)           (Earth, fire, death, etc.)\n                    |                                    |\n                    |                                    |\n                  ADAM.                                 EVE.\n                (Truth.)                              (Error.)\n                    \\________________    _______________/\n                                     \\  /\n                                     MAN.\n              (The union of Spirit and Body, of Truth and Error.)\n                     ________________/  \\_______________\n                    /                                   \\\n               INFERIOR MEN.                       SUPERIOR MEN.\n                 Ishmael.                              Isaac.\n                 Esau.                                 Jacob.\n                 Aaron.                                Moses.\n                 John the Baptist.                     Jesus.\n                 Antichrist.                           Christ.\n\\_____________________________________ ___________________________________/\n                                      V\n                                     GOD.\n                             (Completion, rest.)[85]\n\nThere remains but to mention the curious theory of Bauer and the\nTubingen school. It is now established by recent theological criticism\nthat the Clementine writings were the work of some member or members of\nthe Elkesaites, a sect of the Ebionites, and that they were written at\nRome somewhere in the third century. The Elkessaeans or Elkesaites\nfounded their creed on a book called _Elkesai_, which purported to be an\nangelic revelation and which was remarkable for its hostility to the\napostle Paul. As the _Recognitions_ contain much anti-Paulinism, Bauer\nand his school not only pointed out the Ebionite source of the\nClementine literature, but also put forward the theory that whenever\nSimon Magus is mentioned Paul is intended; and that the narrative of the\n_Acts_ and the legends simply tell the tale of the jealousy of the elder\napostles to Paul, and their attempt to keep him from the fullest\nenjoyment of apostolic privileges. But the latest scholarship shakes its\nhead gravely at the theory, and however bitter controversialists the\nanti-Paulinists may have been, it is not likely that they would have\ngone so far out of their way to vent their feelings in so grotesque a\nfashion.\n\nIn conclusion of this Part let us take a general review of our\nauthorities with regard to the life of Simon and the immoral practices\nattributed to his followers, including a few words of notice on the lost\nSimonian literature, and reserving the explanation of his system and\nsome notice of magical practices for Part III.\n\nI have distinguished the Simon of the fathers from the Simon of the\nlegends, as to biography, \"by convention\" and not \"by nature,\" as the\nSimonians would say, for the one and the other is equally on a mythical\nbasis. It is easy to understand that the rejection of the Simon of the\nlegends is a logical necessity for those who have to repudiate the\nEbionite Clementines. Admit the authenticity of the narrative as regards\nSimon, and the authenticity of the other incidents about John the\nBaptist and Peter would have to be acknowledged; but this would never\ndo, so Simon escapes from the clutches of his orthodox opponents as far\nas this count is concerned.\n\nBut the biographical incidents in the fathers are of a similar nature\nprecisely to those in the Clementines, and their sources of information\nare so vague and unreliable, and at such a distance from the time of\ntheir supposed occurrence, that we have every reason to place them in\nthe same category with the Clementine legends. Therefore, whether we\nreject the evidence or accept it, we must reject both accounts or accept\nboth. To reject the one and accept the other is a prejudice that a\npartisan may be guilty of, but a position which no unbiassed enquirer\ncan with justice take up.\n\nThe legends, however, may find some excuse when it is remembered that\nthey were current in a period when the metal of religious controversy\nwas glowing at white heat. Orthodox Christians had their ears still\ntingling with the echoing of countless accusations of the foulest nature\nto which they had been subjected. Not a crime that was known or could be\nimagined that had not been brought against them; they naturally,\ntherefore, returned the compliment when they could do so with safety,\nand though in these more peaceful and tolerant days much as we may\nregret the flinging backwards and forwards of such vile accusations, we\nmay still find some excuse for it in the passionate enthusiasm of the\ntimes, always, however, remembering that the readiest in accusation and\nin putting the worst construction on the actions of others, is generally\none who unconsciously brings a public accusation against his own lower\nnature.\n\nThis has been well noticed by Matter, who writes as follows:\n\n     \"There is nothing so impure,\" says Eusebius, \"and one cannot\n     imagine anything so criminal, but the sect of the Simonians goes\n     far beyond it.\"[86]\n\n     The bolt of Eusebius is strong; it is even too strong; for one can\n     imagine nothing that goes beyond the excess of criminality; and\n     Eusebius, belonging to a community who were just escaping from\n     punishments into which accusations no less grave had caused them to\n     be dragged, should not perhaps have allowed himself to speak as he\n     does. But man is made thus; he pursues when he ceases to be\n     pursued.[87]\n\nAll societies that have secret rites and a public position, as was the\ncase with all the early communities of Christians and Gnostics, have had\nlike accusations brought against them. The communities of the Simonians\nand Christians may or may not have been impure, it is now impossible to\npronounce a positive opinion. The important point to notice is that the\naccusations being identical and the evidence or want of evidence the\nsame, condemnation or acquittal must be meted out to both; and that if\none is condemned and the other acquitted, the judgment will stand\ncondemned as biassed, and therefore be set aside by those who prefer\ntruth to prejudice.\n\nSo eager were the fathers to discredit Simon that they contradict\nthemselves in the most flagrant fashion on many important points. On the\none hand we hear that Samaria received the seed of the Word from the\napostles and Simon in despair had to flee, on the other hand Justin, a\nnative of Samaria, tells us, a century after this supposed event, that\nnearly all the Samaritans are Simonians. The accounts of Simon's death\nagain are contradictory; if Simon perished so miserably at Rome, it is\nthe reverse of probable that the Romans would have set up a statue in\nhis honour. But, indeed, it is a somewhat thankless task to criticize\nsuch manifest inventions; we know the source of their inspiration, and\nwe know the fertility of the religious imagination, especially in\nmatters of controversy, and this is a sufficient sieve wherewith to sift\nthem out of our heap.\n\nI must now say a few words on Simonian literature of which the only\ngeniune specimens we can in any way be certain are the quotations from\nthe _Apophasis_ of Simon in the text of the _Philosophumena_.\n\nThat there was a body of Simonian scriptures is undoubtedly true, as may\nbe seen from the passages we have quoted from the _Recognitions_,\nJerome, Pseudo-Dionysius and the Arabic Preface to the Nicaean Council,\nand for some time I was in hopes of being able to collect at least some\nscattered fragments of these works, but they have all unfortunately\nshared the fate of much else of value that the ignorance and fear of\northodoxy has committed to the flames. We know at any rate that there\nwas a book called _The Four Quarters of the World_, just as the four\northodox gospels are dedicated to the signs of the four quarters in the\nold MSS., and that a collection of sentences or controversial replies of\nSimon were also held in repute by Simonians and were highly distasteful\nto their opponents. Matter[88] and Am\u00e9lineau[89] speak of a book by the\ndisciples of Simon called _De la Pr\u00e9dication de S. Paul_, but neither\nfrom their references nor elsewhere can I find out any further\ninformation. In Migne's _Encyclop\u00e9die Th\u00e9ologique_,[90] also, a\nreference is given to M. Miller (_Catalogue des Manuscripts Grecs de\nl'Escurial_, p. 112), who is said to mention a Greek MS. on the subject\nof Simon (\"un \u00e9crit en grec relatif \u00e0 Simon\"). But I cannot find this\ncatalogue in the British Museum, nor can I discover any other mention of\nthis MS. in any other author.\n\nAt last I thought that I had discovered something of real value in\nGrabe's _Spicilegium_, purporting to be gleanings of fragments from the\nheretics of the first three centuries A.D.,[91] but the date of the\nauthority is too late to be of much value. Grabe refers to the\nunsatisfactory references I have already given and, to show the nature\nof these books, according to the opinion of the unknown author or\nauthors of the _Apostolic Constitutions_ (Grabe calls him the\n\"collector,\" and for some reason best known to himself places him in the\nfourth century[92]), quotes the following passage from their legendary\npages.\n\n\"Such were the doings of these people with names of ill-omen slandering\nthe creation and marriage, providence, child-bearing, the Law and the\nProphets; setting down foreign names of Angels, as indeed they\nthemselves say, but in reality, of Daemons, who answer back to them from\nbelow.\"\n\nIt is only when Grabe refers to the Simonian _Antirrh\u00eatikoi Logoi_,\nmentioned by the Pseudo-Dionysius, which he calls \"vesani Simonis\nRefutatorii Sermones,\" that we get any new information.\n\nA certain Syrian bishop, Moses Barcephas, writing in the tenth\ncentury,[93] professes to preserve some of these controversial retorts\nof Simon, which the pious Grabe--to keep this venom, as he calls it,\napart from the orthodox refutation--has printed in italics. The\nfollowing is the translation of these italicized passages:\n\n\"God willed that Adam should not eat of that tree; but he did eat; he,\ntherefore, did not remain as God willed him to remain: it results,\ntherefore, that the maker of Adam was impotent.\"\n\n\"God willed that Adam should remain in Paradise; but he of his own\ndisgraceful act fell from thence: therefore the God that made Adam was\nimpotent, inasmuch as he was unable of his own will to keep him in\nParadise.\"\n\n\"(For) he interdicted (he said) Adam from the tree of the knowledge of\ngood and evil, by tasting which he would have had power to judge between\ngood and evil, and to avoid this, and follow after that.\"\n\n\"But (said he) had not that maker of Adam forbidden him to eat of that\ntree, he would in no way have undergone this judgment and this\npunishment; for hence is evil here, in that he (Adam) had done contrary\nto the bidding of God, for God had ordered him not to eat, and he had\neaten.\"\n\n\"Through envy (said he) he forbade Adam to taste of the tree of life, so\nthat, of course, he should not be immortal.\"\n\n\"For what reason on earth (said he) did God curse the serpent? For if\n(he cursed him) as the one who caused the harm, why did he not restrain\nhim from so doing, that is, from seducing Adam? But if (he cursed him)\nas one who had brought some advantage, in that he was the cause of\nAdam's eating of that good tree, it needs must follow that he was\ndistinctly unrighteous and envious; lastly, if, although from neither of\nthese reasons, he still cursed him, he (the maker of Adam) should most\ncertainly be accused of ignorance and folly.\"\n\nNow although there seems no reason why the above contentions should not\nbe considered as in substance the arguments employed by Simon against\nhis antagonists of the dead-letter, yet the tenth century is too late to\nwarrant verbal accuracy, unless there may have been some Syrian\ntranslation which escaped the hands of the destroyers. The above quoted\nspecimen of traditionary Simonian logic, however, is interesting, and\nwill, we believe, be found not altogether out of date in our own\ntimes.[94]\n\nFinally, there is one further point that I have reserved for the end of\nthis Part in order that my readers may constantly keep it in mind during\nthe perusal of the Part which follows.\n\nWe must always remember that every single syllable we possess about\nSimon comes from the hands of bitter opponents, from men who had no\nmercy or toleration for the heretic. The heretic was accursed, condemned\neternally by the very fact of his heresy; an emissary of Satan and the\nnatural enemy of God. There was no hope for him, no mercy for him; he\nwas irretrievably damned.[95] The Simon of our authorities has no\nfriend; no one to say a word in his favour; he is hounded down the\nbyways of \"history\" and the highways of tradition, and to crush him is\nto do God service. One solitary ray of light beams forth in the fragment\nof his work called _The Great Revelation_, one solitary ray, that will\nillumine the garbled accounts of his doctrine, and speak to the\nTheosophists of to-day in no uncertain tones that each may say:\n\n     Methinks there is much reason in his sayings. If thou consider\n     rightly of the matter, [Simon] has had great wrong.[96]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 78: M.E. Am\u00e9lineau, \"Essai sur le Gnosticisme \u00c9gyptien,\"\n_Annales du Mus\u00e9e Guimet_, Tom. xvi. p. 28.]\n\n[Footnote 79: Mosheim's _Institutes of Ecclesiastical History_ (Trans.\netc., Murdock and Soames; ed. Stubbs 1863), Vol. I., p. 87, note, gives\nthe following list of those who have maintained the theory of two\nSimons: Vitringa, _Observ. Sacrar._, v. 12, \u00a7 9, p. 159, C.A. Heumann,\n_Acta Erudit. Lips._ for April, A.D. 1727, p. 179, and Is. de Beausobre,\n_Diss. sur l'Adamites_, pt. ii. subjoined to L'Enfants' _Histoire de la\nGuerre des Hussites_, i. 350, etc. Dr. Salmon also holds this theory.]\n\n[Footnote 80: _Dict. Christ. Biog._, art. \"Helena,\" Vol. II, p. 880.]\n\n[Footnote 81: _Hist. Eccles._, ii. 13.]\n\n[Footnote 82: _Quellenkritik des Epiphanios_.]\n\n[Footnote 83: _Cf._ Dr. Salmon's art. \"Hippolytus Romanus,\" _Dict.\nChrist. Biog._, iii. 93, 94.]\n\n[Footnote 84: _Histoire Critique du Gnosticisme_, Tom. i. p. 197 (1st\ned. 1828).]\n\n[Footnote 85: _Les Bibles, et les Initiateurs Religieux de l'Humanit\u00e9_,\nLouis Leblois, i. 144; from Uhlhorn, _Die Homilien und Recognitionen_,\np. 224.]\n\n[Footnote 86: _Hist. Eccles._, ii. 13.]\n\n[Footnote 87: _Op. cit._, i. 213.]\n\n[Footnote 88: _Op. cit._, ii. 217.]\n\n[Footnote 89: _Op. cit._, 32.]\n\n[Footnote 90: Tom. xxiii, \"Dictionnaire des Apocryphes,\" Vol. II.,\nIndex, pp. lxviii, lxix.]\n\n[Footnote 91: _Spicilegium SS. Patrum ut et Haereticorum Saeculorum post\nChristum natum, I, II et III_; Johannes Ernestus Grabius; Oxoniae, 1714,\ned. alt., Vol. I., pp. 305-312.]\n\n[Footnote 92: P. 306.]\n\n[Footnote 93: _Comment. de Paradiso_, c. i., pp. 200, _et seqq._,\neditionis Antverpiensis, anno 1567, in 8vo.]\n\n[Footnote 94: Grabe is also interesting for a somewhat wild speculation\nwhich he quotes from a British Divine (apud Usserium in _Antiquitatibus\nEccles. Britannicae_), that the tonsure of the monks was taken from the\nSimonians. (Grabe, _op. cit._, p, 697.)]\n\n[Footnote 95: In the epistle of St. Ignatius _Ad Trallianos_ (\u00a7 11),\nSimon is called \"the first-born Son of the Devil\" ([Greek: prototokon\nDiabolou huion]); and St. Polycarp seems to refer to Simon in the\nfollowing passage in his Epistle _Ad Philipp._ (\u00a7 7):\n\n\"Everyone who shall not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh,\nis antichrist, and who shall not confess the martyrdom of the cross, is\nof the Devil; and he who translates the words of the Lord according to\nhis own desires, and says there is neither resurrection nor judgment, he\nis _the first-born of Satan_.\"]\n\n\n\n\n\nPART III.\n\nTHE THEOSOPHY OF SIMON.\n\n\nIn treating of eschatology and the beginning of things the human mind is\never beset with the same difficulties, and no matter how grand may be\nthe effort of the intellect to transcend itself, the finite must ever\nfail to comprehend the infinite. How much less then can words define\nthat which even the whole phenomenal universe fails to express! The\nchange from the One to the Many is not to be described. How the\nAll-Deity becomes the primal Trinity, is the eternal problem set for\nman's solution. No system of religion or philosophy has ever explained\nthis inexplicable mystery, for it cannot be understood by the embodied\nSoul, whose vision and comprehension are dulled by the grossness of its\nphysical envelope. Even the illuminated Soul that quits its prison\nhouse, to bathe in the light of infinitude, can only recollect flashes\nof the Vision Glorious once it returns again to earth.\n\nAnd this is also the teaching of Simon when he says:\n\n     I say there are many gods, but one God of all these gods,\n     incomprehensible and unknown to all, ... a Power of immeasurable\n     and ineffable Light, whose greatness is held to be\n     incomprehensible, a Tower which the maker of the world does not\n     know.\n\nThis is a fundamental dogma of the Gn\u00f4sis in all climes and in all ages.\nThe demiurgic deity is not the All-Deity, for there is an infinite\nsuccession of universes, each having its particular deity, its Brahm\u00e2,\nto use the Hind\u00fb term, but this Brahm\u00e2 is not THAT which is\nPara-Brahman, that which is beyond Brahm\u00e2.\n\nThis view of the Simonian Gn\u00f4sis has been magnificently anticipated in\nthe _Rig Veda_ (x. 129) which reads in the fine translation of\nColebrooke as follows:\n\n    That, whence all this great creation came,\n    Whether Its will created or was mute,\n    The Most High Seer that is in highest Heaven,\n    He knows it--or perchance even He knows not.\n\nIn treating of emanation, evolution, creation or whatever other term may\nbe given to the process of manifestation, therefore, the teachers deal\nonly with one particular universe; the Unmanifested Root, and Universal\nCause of all Universes lying behind, in potentiality ([Greek: dynamis]),\nin Incomprehensible Silence ([Greek: sigae akatalaeptos]). For on the\n\"Tongue of the Ineffable\" are many \"Words\" ([Greek: logoi]), each\nUniverse having its own Logos.\n\nThus then Simon speaks of the Logos of this Universe and calls it Fire\n([Greek: pyr]). This is the Universal Principle or Beginning ([Greek:\nton holon archae]), or Universal Rootage ([Greek: rizoma ton holon]).\nBut this Fire is not the fire of earth; it is Divine Light and Life and\nMind, the Perfect Intellectual ([Greek: to teleion noeron]). It is the\nOne Power, \"generating itself, increasing itself, seeking itself,\nfinding itself, its own mother, its own father, its sister, its spouse:\nthe daughter, son, mother, and father of itself; One, the Universal\nRoot.\" It is That, \"which has neither beginning nor end, existing in\noneness.\" \"Producing itself by itself, it manifested to itself its own\nThought ([Greek: epinoia]).\"\n\nIt is quite true that this symbology of Fire is not original with\nSimon, but there is also no reason to suppose that the Samaritan\nteacher plagiarized from Heracleitus when we know that the major part of\nantiquity regarded fire and the sun as the most fitting symbols of\nDeity. Of the manifested elements, fire was the most potent, and\ntherefore the most fitting symbol that could be selected in manifested\nnature.\n\nBut what was the Fire of Heracleitus, the Obscure ([Greek: ho\nskoteinos]), as Cicero, with the rest of the ancients, called him,\nbecause of his difficult style? What was the Universal Principle of the\n\"weeping philosopher,\" the pessimist who valued so little the estimation\nof the vulgar ([Greek: ochloloidoros])? It certainly was no common\n\"fire,\" certainly no puerile concept to be brushed away by the mere\nhurling of an epithet.\n\nHeracleitus of Ephesus (_flor. c._ 503 B.C.) was a sincerely religious\nman in the highest sense of the word, a reformer who strongly opposed\nthe degenerate polytheism and idolatry of his age; he insisted on the\nimpermanence of the phenomenal universe, of human affairs, beliefs and\nopinions, and declared the One Eternal Reality; teaching that the Self\nof man was a portion of the Divine Intelligence. The object of his\nenquiry was Wisdom, and he reproached his vain-glorious countrymen of\nthe city of Diana with the words: \"Your _knowledge_ of many things does\nnot give you _wisdom_.\"\n\nIn his philosophy of nature he declared the One Thing to be Fire, but\nFire of a mystical nature, \"self-kindled and self-extinguished,\" the\nvital quickening power of the universe. It was that Universal Life, by\nparticipation in which all things have their being, and apart from which\nthey are unsubstantial and unreal. This is the \"Tree of Life\" spoken of\nby Simon.\n\nIn this Ocean of Fire or Life--in every point or atom of it--is inherent\na longing to manifest itself in various forms, thus giving rise to the\nperpetual flux and change of the phenomenal world. This Divine Desire,\nthis \"love for everything that lives and breathes,\" is found in many\nsystems, and especially in the Vedic and Phoenician Cosmogony. In the\n_Rig Veda_ (x. 129), it is that K\u00e2ma or Desire \"which first arose in It\n(the Unknown Deity),\" elsewhere identified with Agni or Fire. In the\nfragments of Phoenician Cosmogony, recovered from Sanchuniathon, it is\ncalled Pothos ([Greek: pothos]) and Er\u00f4s ([Greek: eros]).\n\nIn its pure state, the Living and Rational Fire of Heracleitus resides\nin the highest conceivable Heaven, whence it descends stage by stage,\ngradually losing the velocity of its motion and vitality, until it\nfinally reaches the Earth-stage, having previously passed through that\nof \"Water.\" Thence it returns to its parent source.\n\nIn this eternal flux, the only repose was to be found in the harmony\nthat occasionally resulted from one portion of the Fire in its descent\nmeeting another in its ascent. All this took place under Law and Order,\nand the Soul of man being a portion of the Fire in its pure state, and\ntherefore an exile here on Earth, could only be at rest by cultivating\nas the highest good, contentment ([Greek: euarestaesis]), or\nacquiescence to the Law.\n\nThe author of the _Philosophumena_ professes to give us some additional\ninformation on this philosopher who \"bewailed all things, condemning the\nignorance of all that lives, and of all men, in pity for the life of\nmortals,\" but the obscure philosopher does not lend himself very easily\nto the controversial purposes of the patristic writer. Heracleitus\ncalled the Universal Principle ([Greek: ton hapanton archae])\nIntellectual Fire ([Greek: pur noeron]), and said that the sphere\nsurrounding us and reaching to the Moon was filled with evil, but beyond\nthe Moon-sphere it was purer.[97]\n\nThe sentences that the author quotes from Heracleitus in Book IX, are\nnot only obscure enough in themselves, but are also rendered all the\nmore obscure by the polemical treatment they are subjected to by the\npatristic writer. Heracleitus makes the ALL inclusive of all Being and\nNon-Being, all pairs of opposites, \"differentiation and\nnon-differentiation, the generable and ingenerable, mortal and immortal,\nthe Logos and Aeon, and the Father and Son,\" which he calls the \"Just\nGod.\" This ALL is the \"Sadasat-Tatparam yat\" of the _Bhagavad G\u00eet\u00e2_,\ninclusive of Being (Sat), Non-Being (Asat), and That Which transcends\nthem (Tatparam yat).[98]\n\nThis Logos plays an important part in the system of the Ephesian sage,\nwho says that they who give ear to the Logos (the Word or Supreme\nReason) know that \"All is One\" ([Greek: hen panta eidenai]). Such an\nadmission he calls, \"Reflex Harmony\" ([Greek: palintropos harmoniae]),\nlike unto the Supernal Harmony, which he calls Hidden or Occult, and\ndeclares its superiority to the Manifested Harmony. The ignorance and\nmisery of men arise from their not acting according to this Harmony,\nthat is to say, according to (Divine) Nature ([Greek: kata phusin]).\n\nHe also declares that the Aeon, the Emanative Deity, is as a child\nplaying at creation, an idea found in both the Hind\u00fb and Hermetic\nScriptures. In the former the Universe is said to be the sport (L\u00eel\u00e2) of\nVishnu, who is spoken of in one of his incarnations as L\u00eel\u00e2vat\u00e2ra,\ndescending on earth for his own pleasure, when as Krishna he assumed the\nshape of man as a pretence (a purely Docetic doctrine), hence called\nL\u00eel\u00e2-m\u00e2nusha-vigraha; while in the latter we learn from a magic papyrus\nthat Thoth (the God of Wisdom) created the world by bursting into \"seven\npeals of laughter.\" This, of course, typifies the Bliss of the Deity in\nEmanation or Creation, caused by that Divine Love and Compassion for all\nthat lives and breathes, which is the well-spring of the Supreme Cause\nof the Universe.\n\nDiving into the Mystery of Being, Heracleitus showed how a thing could\nbe good or evil, and evil or good, at one and the same time, as for\ninstance sea water which preserved and nourished fishes but destroyed\nmen. So also, speaking in his usual paradoxical manner, which can only\nbe understood by a full comprehension of the dual nature of man,--the\nreal divine entity, and the passing and ever-changing manifestation,\nwhich so many take for the whole man--he says:\n\n     The immortals are mortal, and the mortals immortal, the former\n     living the death of the latter, and the latter dying the life of\n     the former.[99]\n\nThus all externals are transitory, for \"no one has ever been twice on\nthe same stream, for different waters are constantly flowing down,\" and\ntherefore in following externals we shall err, for nothing is efficient\nand forcible except through Harmony, and its subjection to the Divine\nFire, the central principle of Life.\n\nSuch was the Fire of the distinguished Ephesian, and of like nature was\nthe Fire of Simon with its three primordial hypostases, Incorruptible\nForm ([Greek: aphthartos morphae]), Universal Mind ([Greek: nous ton\nholon]), and Great Thought ([Greek: epinoia megalae]), synthesized as\nthe Universal Logos, He who has stood, stands and will stand ([Greek: ho\nestos, stas, staesomenos]).\n\nBut before passing on to the aeonology of Simon, a short delay, to\nenquire more fully into the notions of the Initiated among the ancients\nas to the nature of Mystic Fire, will not be without advantage.\n\nIf Simon was a Samaritan and learned in the esoteric interpretation of\nscripture, he could not have failed to be acquainted with the Kabalah,\nperhaps even with the now lost Chaldaean _Book of Numbers_. Among the\nbooks of the Kabalah, the _Zohar_, or \"Book of Splendour,\" speaks of the\nmysterious \"Hidden Light,\" that which Simon calls the Hidden Fire\n([Greek: to krupton]), and tells us of the \"Mystery of the Three Parts\nof the Fire, which are One\" as follows:\n\n     Began Rabbi Sim-on and said: Two verses are written, \"That YHVH thy\n     Elohim is a devouring fire, a zealous Ail (El)\" (_Deut._, iv. 24);\n     again it is written, \"But you that cleave unto YHVH your Elohim,\n     are alive, every one of you, this day\" (_Deut._, iv. 4). On this\n     verse \"That YHVH thy Elohim is a consuming fire,\" this we said to\n     the companions; That it is a fire which devours fire, and it is a\n     fire which devours itself and consumes itself, because it is a fire\n     which is more mighty than fire, and it has been so confirmed. But,\n     Come, See! Whoever desires to know the wisdom of the Holy Unity\n     should look in that flame arising from a burning coal or a lighted\n     lamp. This flame comes out only when united with another thing.\n     Come, See! In the flame which goes up are two lights: one light is\n     a bright white and one light is united with a dark or blue; the\n     white light is that which is above and ascends in a straight path,\n     and that below is that dark or blue light, and this light below is\n     the throne to the white light and that white light rests upon it,\n     and they unite one to the other so that they are one. And this dark\n     light, or blue colour, which is below, is the precious throne to\n     the white. And this is the mystery of the blue. And this blue dark\n     throne unites itself with another thing to light that from below,\n     and this awakes it to unite with the upper white light, and this\n     blue or dark, sometimes changes its colour, but that white above\n     never changes its colour, it is always white; but that blue changes\n     to these different colours, sometimes to blue or black and\n     sometimes to a red colour, and this unites itself to two sides. It\n     unites to the above, to that white upper light, and unites itself\n     below to the thing which is under it, which is the burning matter,\n     and this burns and consumes always from the matter below. And this\n     devours that matter below, which connects with it and upon which\n     the blue light rests, therefore this eats up all which connects\n     with it from below, because it is the nature of it, that it devour\n     and consume everything which depends on it and is dead matter, and\n     therefore it eats up everything which connects with it below, and\n     this white light which rests upon it never consumes itself and\n     never changes its light, and therefore said Moses; \"That YHVH thy\n     Elohim is a consuming fire.\" Surely He consumes. It devours and\n     consumes every thing which rests under it; and on this he said:\n     \"YHVH is thy Elohim\" not \"our Elohim,\" because Moses has been in\n     that white light, Above, which neither devours nor consumes. Come,\n     See! It is not His Will to light that blue light that should unite\n     with that white light, only for Isra\u00ebl; because they cleave or\n     connect under Him. And, Come, See! Although the nature of that dark\n     or blue light is, that it shall consume every thing which joins\n     with it below, still Isra\u00ebl cleaves on Him, Below, ... and although\n     you cleave in Him nevertheless you exist, because it is written:\n     \"You are all alive this day.\" And on this white light rests above a\n     Hidden Light which is stronger. Here is the above mystery of that\n     flame which comes out from it, and in it is the Wisdom of the\n     Above.[100]\n\nAnd if Chaldaea gave the impulse which enshrined the workings of the\nCosmos in such graphic symbology as the above, we are not surprised to\nread in the Chaldaean Oracles ([Greek: logia]),[101] ascribed to\nZoroaster, that \"all things are generated from One Fire.\"[102] And this\nFire in its first energizing was intellectual; the first \"Creation\" was\nof Mind and not of Works:\n\n     For the Fire Beyond, the first, did not shut up its power ([Greek:\n     dunamis]) into Matter ([Greek: hulae]) by Works, but by Mind, for\n     the fashioner of the Fiery Cosmos is the Mind of Mind.[103]\n\nA striking similarity with the Simonian system, indeed, rendered all the\ncloser by the Oracle which speaks of that:\n\n     Which first leaped forth from Mind, enveloping Fire with Fire,\n     binding them together that it might interblend the\n     mother-vortices,[104] while retaining the flower of its own\n     Fire.[105]\n\nThis \"flower\" of Fire and the vorticle idea is further explained by the\nOracle which says:\n\n     Thence a trailing whirlwind, the flower of shadowy Fire, leaping\n     into the wombs (or hollows) of worlds. For thence it is that all\n     things begin to stretch below their wondrous rays.[106]\n\nCompare this with the teaching of Simon that the \"fruit\" of the Tree is\nplaced in the Store-house and not cast into the Fire.\n\nIn his aeonology, Simon, like other Gnostic teachers, begins with the\nWord, the Logos, which springs up from the Depths of the\nUnknown--Invisible, Incomprehensible Silence. It is true that he does\nnot so name the Great Power, He who has stood, stands and will stand;\nbut that which comes forth from Silence is Speech, and the idea is the\nsame whatever the terminology employed may be. Setting aside the\nHermetic teachings and those of the later Gn\u00f4sis, we find this idea of\nthe Great Silence referred to several times in the fragments of the\nChaldaean Oracles. It is called \"God-nourished Silence\" ([Greek: sigae\ntheothremmon]), according to whose divine decrees the Mind that\nenergizes before all energies, abides in the Paternal Depth.[107] Again:\n\n     This unswerving Deity is called the Silent One by the gods, and is\n     said to consent (lit. sing together) with the Mind, and to be known\n     by the Souls through Mind alone.[108]\n\nElsewhere the Oracles demonstrate this Power which is prior to the\nhighest Heaven as \"Mystic Silence.\"[109]\n\nThe Word, then, issuing from Silence is first a Monad, then a Duad, a\nTriad and a Hebdomad. For no sooner has differentiation commenced in it,\nand it passes from the state of Oneness ([Greek: monotaes]), than the\nDuadic and Triadic state immediately supervene, arising, so to say,\nsimultaneously in the mind, for the mind cannot rest on Duality, but is\nforced by a law of its nature to rest only on the joint emanation of the\nTwo. Thus the first natural resting point is the Trinity. The next is\nthe Hebdomad or Septenary, according to the mathematical formula\n2^{n}-1, the sum of _n_ things taken 1, 2, 3 ... _n_, at a time. The\nTrinity being manifested, _n_ here =3; and 2^{3}-1 = 7.\n\nThus Simon has six Roots and the Seventh Power, seven in all, as the\ntype of the Aeons in the Pler\u00f4ma. These all proceed from the Fire. In\nlike manner also the Cabeiric deities of Samothrace and Phoenicia were\nFire-gods, born of the Fire. Nonnus tells us they were sons of the\nmysterious Hephaestus (Vulcan),[110] and Eusebius, in his quotations\nfrom Sanchuniathon, that they were _seven_ in number.[111] The Vedic\nAgni (Ignis) also, the God of Fire, is called \"Seven-tongued\"\n(Sapta-jihva) and \"Seven-flamed\" (Sapta-jv\u00e2la).[112]\n\nIn the _Hibbert Lectures_ of 1887, Prof. A.H. Sayce gives the following\nHymn of Ancient Babylonia to the Fire-god, from _The Cuneiform\nInscriptions of Western Asia_ (iv. 15):\n\n     1. The (bed) of the earth they took for their border, but the god\n     appeared not,\n\n     2. from the foundations of the earth he appeared not to make\n     hostility;\n\n     3. (to) the heaven below they extended (their path), and to the\n     heaven that is unseen they climbed afar.\n\n     4. In the Star(s) of Heaven was not their ministry; in Mazzaroth\n     (the Zodiacal signs) was their office.\n\n     5. The Fire-god, the first-born supreme, into heaven they pursued\n     and no father did he know.\n\n     6. O Fire-god, supreme on high, the first-born, the mighty, supreme\n     enjoiner of the commands of Anu!\n\n     7. The Fire-god enthrones with himself the friend that he loves.\n\n     8. He reveals the enmity of those seven.\n\n     9. On the work he ponders in his dwelling-place.\n\n     10. O Fire-god, how were those seven begotten, how were they\n     nurtured?\n\n     11. Those seven in the mountain of the sunset were born;\n\n     12. those seven in the mountain of the sunrise grew up.\n\n     13. In the hollows of the earth they have their dwelling;\n\n     14. on the high places of the earth their names are proclaimed.\n\n     15. As for them, in heaven and earth they have no dwelling, hidden\n     is their name.\n\n     16. Among the sentient gods they are not known.\n\n     17. Their name in heaven and earth exists not.\n\n     18. Those seven from the mountain of the sunset gallop forth;\n\n     19. those seven in the mountain of the sunrise are bound to rest.\n\n     20. In the hollows of the earth they set the foot.\n\n     21. On the high places of the earth they lift the neck.\n\n     22. They by nought are known; in heaven and in earth is no\n     knowledge of them.[113]\n\nThough I have no intention of contending that Simon obtained his ideas\nspecifically from Vedic, Chaldaean, Babylonian, Zoroastrian, or\nPhoenician sources, still the identity of ideas and the probability,\nalmost amounting to conviction for the student, that the Initiated of\nantiquity all drew from the same sources, shows that there was nothing\noriginal in the main features of the Simonian system.\n\nThis is also confirmed by the statements in Epiphanius and the\n_Apostolic Constitutions_ that the Simonians gave \"barbarous\" or\n\"foreign names\" to their Aeons. That is to say, names that were neither\nGreek nor Hebrew. None of these names are mentioned by the Fathers, and\nprobably the Greek terms given by the author of the _Philosophumena_ and\nTheodoret are exoteric equivalents of the mystery names. There is\nabundant evidence, from gems, monuments and fragments, to show that\nthere was a mystery language employed by the Gnostic and other schools.\nWhat this language was no scholar has yet been able to tell us, and it\nis sufficiently evident that the efforts at decipherment are so far\nabortive. The fullest and most precious examples of these names and of\nthis language are to be found in the papyri brought back by Bruce from\nAbyssinia at the latter end of the last century.[114]\n\nJamblichus tells us that the language of the Mysteries was that of\nancient Egypt and Assyria, which he calls \"sacred nations,\" as follows:\n\n     But, you ask, why among our symbolical terms ([Greek: saemantika])\n     we prefer barbarous (words) to our respective native (tongues)?\n     There is also for this a mystic reason. For it was the gods who\n     taught the sacred nations, such as the Egyptians and Assyrians, the\n     whole of their sacred dialect, wherefore we think that we ought to\n     make our own dialects resemble the speech cognate with the gods.\n     Since also the first mode of speech in antiquity was of such a\n     nature, and especially since they who learnt the first names\n     concerning the gods, mingled them with their own tongue--as being\n     suited to such (names) and conformable to them--and handed them\n     down to us, we therefore keep unchanged the rule of this immemorial\n     tradition to our own times. For of all things that are suited to\n     the gods the most akin is manifestly that which is eternal and\n     immutable.[115]\n\nThe existence of this sacred tongue perhaps accounts for the constant\ndistinction made by Homer between the language of the gods and that of\nmen.[116] Diodorus Siculus also asserts that the Samothracians used a\nvery ancient and peculiar dialect in their sacred rites.[117]\n\nThese \"barbarous names\" were regarded as of the greatest efficacy and\nsanctity, and it was unlawful to change them. As the Chaldaean Logia say:\n\n     Change not the barbarous names, for in all the nations are there\n     names given by the gods, possessing unspeakable power in the\n     Mysteries.[118]\n\nAnd the scholiast[119] adds that they should not be translated into\nGreek.\n\nIt is, therefore, most probable that Simon used the one, three, five,\nand seven syllabled or vowelled names, and that the Greek terms were\nsubstitutes that completely veiled the esoteric meaning from the\nuninitiated.\n\nThe names of the seven Aeons, as given by the author of the\n_Philosophumena_, are as follows: The Image from the Incorruptible Form,\nalone ordering all things ([Greek: eikon ex aphthartou morphaes kosmousa\nmonae panta]), also called The Spirit moving on the Waters ([Greek: to\npneuma to epipheroumenon epano tou hudatos]) and The Seventh Power\n([Greek: hae ebdomae dunamis]); Mind ([Greek: nous]) and Thought\n([Greek: epinoia]), also called Heaven ([Greek: ouranos]) and Earth\n([Greek: gae]); Voice ([Greek: phonae]) and Name ([Greek: onoma]),[120]\nalso called Sun ([Greek: haelios]) and Moon ([Greek: selaenae]); Reason\n([Greek: logismos]) and Reflection ([Greek: enthumaesis]), also called\nAir ([Greek: aaer]) and Water ([Greek: hudor]).\n\nThe first three of these are sufficiently explained in the fragment of\nSimon's _Great Revelation_, preserved in the _Philosophumena_, and\nbecome entirely comprehensible to the student of the Kabalah who is\nlearned in the emanations of the Sephirothal Tree. Mind and Thought are\nevidently Chokmah and Binah, and the three and seven Sephiroth are to be\nclearly recognized in the scheme of the Simonian System which is to\nfollow.\n\nOf the two lower Syzygies, or Lower Quaternary of the Aeons, we have no\ndetails from the Fathers. We may, however, see some reason for the\nexoteric names--Voice and Name, Reason and Reflection--from the\nfollowing considerations:\n\n(1) We should bear in mind what has already been said about the Logos,\nSpeech and Divine Names. (2) In the Septenary the Quaternary represents\nthe Manifested and the Triad the Concealed Side of the Fire. (3) The\nfundamental characteristics of the manifested universe with the Hind\u00fbs\nand Buddhists are Name (N\u00e2ma) and Form (R\u00fbpa). (4) Simon says that the\nGreat Power was not called Father until Thought (in manifestation\nbecoming Voice) _named_ ([Greek: onomasai]) him Father. (5) Reason and\nReflection are evidently the two lowest aspects, principles, or\ncharacteristics, of the _divine_ Mind of man. These are included in the\nlower mind, or Internal Organ (Antah-karana), by the Ved\u00e2ntin\nphilosophers of India and called Buddhi and Manas, being respectively\nthe mental faculties used in the certainty of judgment and the doubt of\nenquiry.\n\nThis Quaternary, among a host of other things, typifies the four lower\nplanes, elements, principles, aspects, etc., of the Universe, with their\nHierarchies of Angels, Archangels, Rulers, etc., each synthesized by a\nLord who is supreme in his own domain. Seeing, however, that the\noutermost physical plane is so vast that it transcends the power of\nconception of even the greatest intellect, it is useless for us to\nspeculate on the interplay of cosmic forces and the mysterious\ninteraction of Spheres of Being that transcend all normal human\nconsciousness. It is only on the lowest and outermost plane that the\nlower Quaternary symbolizes the four Cardinal Points. The Michael (Sun),\nGabriel (Moon), Uriel (Venus), and Raphael (Mercury) of the Kabalah, the\nfour Beasts, the Wheels of Ezekiel, were living, divine, and intelligent\nEntities pertaining to the inner nature of man and the universe for the\nInitiated.\n\nIt is to be presumed that the Simonians had distinct teachings on this\npoint, as is evidenced by the title of their lost work, _The Book of the\nFour Angles and Points of the World_. The Four Angles were probably\nconnected with the four ducts or Streams of the \"River going forth from\nEden to water the Garden.\" These Streams have their analogy on all\nplanes, and cosmically are of the same nature as the \u00c2k\u00e2sha-Gang\u00e2--the\nGanges in the Ak\u00e2shic Ocean of Space--and the rest of the Rivers in the\nPaur\u00e2nic writings of the Hind\u00fbs.\n\nBut before going further it will be as well to have a Diagram or Scheme\nof the Simonian Aeonology, for presumably the School of Simon had such a\nScheme, as we know the Ophites had from the work of Origen, _Contra\nCelsum_.\n\n[Illustration: DIAGRAM OF THE SIMONIAN AEONOLOGY.][121]\n\n\nOf course no Diagram is anything more than a symbolical mnemonic, so to\nsay; in itself it is entirely insufficient and only permits a glance at\none aspect, or face, of the world-process. It is a step in a ladder\nmerely, useful only for mounting and to be left aside when once a higher\nrung is reached. Thus it is that the whole of the elements of Euclid\nwere merely an introduction to the comprehension of the \"Platonic\nSolids,\" which must also, in their turn, be discarded when the within or\nessence of things has to be dealt with and not the without or\nappearance, no matter how \"typical\" that appearance may be.\n\nSufficient has already been said of the Universal Principle, of the\nUniversal Root and of the Boundless Power--the Parabrahman (That Which\ntranscends Brahm\u00e2), M\u00fbla-Prakriti (Root-Nature), and Supreme \u00ceshvara,\nor the Unmanifested Eternal Logos, of the Ved\u00e2ntic Philosophers. The\nnext stage is the potential unmanifested type of the Trinity, the Three\nin One and One in Three, the Potentialities of Vishnu, Brahm\u00e2, and\nShiva, the Preservative, Emanative, and Regenerative Powers--the Supreme\nLogos, Universal Ideation and Potential Wisdom, called by Simon the\nIncorruptible Form, Universal Mind and Great Thought. This Incorruptible\nForm is the Paradigm of all Forms, called Vishva R\u00fbpam or All-Form and\nthe Param R\u00fbpam or Supreme Form, in the _Bhagavad G\u00eet\u00e2_[122] spoken also\nof as the Param Nidh\u00e2nam or Supreme Treasure-house,[123] which Simon\nalso calls the Treasure-house [Greek: thaesauros] and Store-house\n[Greek: apothaekae], an idea found in many systems, and most elaborately\nin that of the _Pistis-Sophia_.\n\nBetween this Divine World, the Unmanifested Triple Aeon, and the World\nof Men is the Middle Distance--the Waters of Space differentiated by the\nImage or Reflection of the Triple Logos (D) brooding upon them. As there\nare three Worlds, the Divine, Middle, and Lower, which have been well\nnamed by the Valentinians the Pneumatic (or Spiritual), Psychic (or\nSoul-World), and Hylic (or Material), so in the Middle Distance we have\nthree planes or degrees, or even seven. This Middle Distance contains\nthe Invisible Spheres between the Physical World and the Divine. To it\nthe Initiated and Illuminati, the Spiritual Teachers of all ages, have\ndevoted much exposition and explanation. It is divine and infernal at\none and the same time, for as the higher parts--to use a phrase that is\nclumsy and misleading, but which cannot be avoided--are pure and\nspiritual, so the lower parts are corrupted and tainted. The law of\nanalogy, imaging and reflection, hold good in every department of\nemanative nature, and though pure and spiritual ideas come to men from\nthis realm of the Middle Distance, it also receives back from man the\nimpressions of his impure thoughts and desires, so that its lower parts\nare fouler even than the physical world, for man's secret thoughts and\npassions are fouler than the deeds he performs. Thus there is a Heaven\nand Hell in the Middle Distance, a Pneumatic and Hylic state.\n\nThe Lord of this Middle World is One in his own Aeon, but in reality a\nreflection of the triple radiance from the Unmanifested Logos. This Lord\nis the Manifested Logos, the Spirit moving on the Waters. Therefore all\nits emanations or creations are triple. The triple Light above and the\ntriple Darkness below, force and matter, or spirit and matter, both\nowing their being and apparent opposition to the Mind, \"alone ordering\nall things.\"\n\nThe Diagram to be more comprehensible should be so arranged, mentally,\nthat each of the higher spheres is found within or interpenetrating the\nlower. Thus, from this point of view, the centre is a more important\nposition than above or below. External to all is the Physical Universe,\nmade by the Hylic Angels, that is to say those emanated by Thought,\nEpinoia, as representing Primeval Mother Earth, or Matter; not the Earth\nwe know, but the Adamic Earth of the Philosophers, the Potencies of\nMatter, which Eugenius Philalethes assures us, on his honour, no man has\never seen. This Earth is, in one sense, the Protyle for which the most\nadvanced of our modern Chemists are searching as the One Mother Element.\n\nThe idea of the Spirit of God moving on the Waters is a very beautiful\none, and we find it worked out in much detail in the Hind\u00fb scriptures.\nFor instance, in the _Vishnu Pur\u00e2na_,[124] we find a description of the\nemanation of the present Universe by the Supreme Spirit, at the\nbeginning of the present Kalpa or Aeon, an infinity of Kalpas and\nUniverses stretching behind. This he creates endowed with the Quality of\nGoodness, or the Pneumatic Potency. For the three Qualities (or Gunas)\nof Nature (Prakriti) are the Pneumatic, Psychic and Hylic Potencies of\nthe Waters of Simon.\n\n     At the close of the past (or P\u00e2dma) Kalpa, the divine Brahm\u00e2,\n     endowed with the quality of goodness, awoke from his night of\n     sleep, and beheld the universe void. He, the supreme N\u00e2r\u00e2yana, the\n     incomprehensible, the sovereign of all creatures, invested with the\n     form of Brahm\u00e2, the god without beginning, the creator of all\n     things; of whom, with respect to his name N\u00e2r\u00e2yana, the god who has\n     the form of Brahm\u00e2, the imperishable origin[125] of the world, this\n     verse is repeated: \"The waters are called N\u00e2r\u00e2, because they were\n     the offspring of Nara (the supreme spirit); and, as, in them, his\n     first (Ayana)[126] progress (in the character of Brahm\u00e2) took\n     place, he is thence named N\u00e2r\u00e2yana (he whose place of moving was\n     the waters).\"\n\nSir Wm. Jones translates this well-known verse of Manu[127] as follows:\n\n     The waters are called N\u00e2r\u00e2h, because they were the production of\n     Nara, or the spirit of God; and, since they were his first Ayana,\n     or place of motion, he thence is named N\u00e2r\u00e2yana or moving on the\n     waters.\n\nSubstantially the same statement is made in the _Linga, V\u00e2yu_, and\n_M\u00e2rkandeya Pur\u00e2nas_, and the _Bh\u00e2gavata_ explains it more fully as\nfollows:\n\n     Purusha (the Spirit) having divided the egg (the ideal universe in\n     germ), on his issuing forth in the beginning, desiring a place of\n     motion (Ayanam) for himself, pure he created the waters pure.\n\nIn the _Vishnu Pur\u00e2na_, again, Brahm\u00e2, speaking to the Celestials, says:\n\n     I, Mah\u00e2deva (Shiva), and you all are but N\u00e2r\u00e2yana.[128]\n\nThe beautiful symbol of the Divine Spirit moving and brooding over the\nPrimordial Waters of Space--Waters which as differentiation proceeds\nbecome more and more turbid--is too graphic to require further\nexplanation. It is too hallowed by age and sanctified by the consent of\nhumanity to meet with less than our highest admiration.\n\nDissertation on our Diagram could be pursued to almost any length, but\nsufficient has already been said to show the points of correspondence\nbetween the ideas ascribed to Simon and universal Theosophy.\n\nLet us now enquire into the part played by Epinoia, the Divine Thought,\nin the cosmic process, reserving the part played by her in the human\ndrama to when we come to treat of the soteriology of Simon. We have\nevidently here a version of the great Sophia-mythus, which plays so\nimportant a part in all Gnostic systems. On the one hand the energizings\nof the mother-side of Divine Nature, on the other the history of the\nevolution of the Divine Monad, shut into all forms throughout the\nelemental spheres, throughout the lower kingdoms, up to the man stage.\n\nThe mystery of Sophia-Epinoia is great indeed, insoluble in its origins;\nfor how does that which is Divine descend below and create Powers which\nimprison their parent? It is the mystery of the universe and of man,\ninsoluble for all but the Logos itself, by whose self-sacrifice Sophia,\nthe Soul, is finally freed from her bonds.\n\nEpinoia is a Power of many names. She is called the Mother, or\nAll-Mother, Mother of the Living or Shining Mother, the Celestial Eve;\nthe Power Above; the Holy Spirit, for the Spiritus in some systems is a\nfeminine power (in a symbolical sense, of course), pre-eminently in the\n_Codex Nazaraeus_, the scripture of the Manda\u00eftes. Again she is called\nShe of the Left-hand, as opposed to the Christos, He of the Right-hand;\nthe Man-woman; Prouneikos; Matrix; Paradise; Eden; Acham\u00f4th; the Virgin;\nBarbelo; Daughter of Light; Merciful Mother; Consort of the Masculine\nOne; Revelant of the Perfect Mysteries; Perfect Mercy; Revelant of the\nMysteries of the Whole Magnitude; Hidden Mother; She who knows the\nMysteries of the Elect; the Holy Dove, who has given birth to the two\nTwins; Ennoia; and by many another name varying according to the\nterminology of the different systems, but ever preserving the root idea\nof the World-Soul in the Macrocosm and the Soul in Man.\n\nWithin every form, aye, even apparently the meanest, is Epinoia\nconfined; for everything within is innate with Life; every form contains\na spark of the Divine Fire, essentially of the same nature as the All;\nfor in the Roots, and also in all things--since all is built on their\ntype--is \"the whole of the Boundless Power together _in potentiality_,\nbut not _in actuality_.\"\n\nThe reason given for this imprisonment of Sophia in most of the systems\nis that she endeavoured to create without her Syzygy, the Father or\nNous, wishing to imitate alone the self-generating power of the Supreme.\nThus through ignorance she involved herself in suffering, from which she\nwas freed by repentance and experience. What explanation of this supreme\nmystery was publicly ventured on by Simon we cannot know, for the\npatristic accounts are confused and contradictory.\n\nIrenaeus tells us that:\n\n     She was the first Conception (Epinoia) of his Mind, the Mother of\n     All, by whom in the beginning he conceived in his Mind, the making\n     of the Angels and Archangels.\n\n     This Epinoia, leaping forth from _him_ (the Boundless Power), and\n     knowing what was the will of her Father, descended to the Lower\n     Regions and generated the Angels and Powers, by whom also he said\n     the world was made. And after she had generated them, she was\n     detained by them through envy, for they did not wish to be thought\n     the progeny of another. As for himself he was entirely unknown by\n     them; and it was his Thought (Epinoia) that was made prisoner by\n     the Powers and Angels that had been emanated by her. And she\n     suffered every kind of indignity at their hands to prevent her\n     re\u00e4scending to her Father, even to being imprisoned in the human\n     body and transmigrating into other female bodies, as from one\n     vessel into another.\n\nTertullian's account differs by the important addition that the \"design\nof the Father was prevented\"; how or why he does not say.\n\n     She was his first Suggestion whereby he suggested the making of the\n     Angels and Archangels; that she sharing in this design had sprung\n     forth from the Father, and leaped down into the Lower Regions; and\n     that there, the design of the Father being prevented, she had\n     brought forth Angelic Powers ignorant of the Father, the artificer\n     of this world (?); by these she was detained, not according to his\n     intention, lest when she had gone they should be thought to be the\n     progeny of another, etc.\n\nThe _Philosophumena_ say nothing on this point, except that Epinoia\n\"throws all the Powers in the World into confusion through her\nunsurpassable Beauty.\"\n\nPhilaster renders confusion worse confounded, by writing:\n\n     And he also dared to say that the World had been made by Angels,\n     and the Angels again had been made by certain endowed with\n     perception from Heaven, and that they (the Angels) had deceived the\n     human race.\n\n     He asserted, moreover, that there was a certain other Thought\n     (Intellectus) who descended into the world for the salvation of\n     men.\n\nEpiphanius further complicates the problem as follows:\n\n     This Power (Prun\u00eecus and Holy Spirit) descending from Above changed\n     its form.... And through the Power from Above ... displaying her\n     beauty, she drove them to frenzy, and on this account was she sent\n     for the despoiling of the Rulers who brought the World into being;\n     and the Angels themselves went to war on her account; and while she\n     experienced nothing, they set to work to mutually slaughter each\n     other on account of the desire which she infused into them for\n     herself.\n\nTheodoret briefly follows Irenaeus.\n\nIn these contradictory accounts we have a great confusion between the\nr\u00f4les played by Nous and Epinoia, the Father and Thought, the Spirit and\nSpiritual Soul. Then again how did the Lower Regions come into\nexistence, for Epinoia to descend to them? This lacuna is filled by the\nfuller information of the _Philosophumena_ which shows us the scheme of\nself-emanation out or down into matter by similitude, thus confining the\nproblem of \"evil\" to space and time, and not raising it into an eternal\nprinciple. Naturally it is not to be supposed that the origin of \"evil\"\nis solvable for man in his present state, therefore whether it was\naccording to the design or contrary to the design of the Father, will\never depend upon the point of view from which we severally regard the\nproblem.\n\nLaw, Justice, and Compassion are not incompatible terms to one whose\nheart is set firm on spiritual things; and the view that evil is not a\nthing in itself, but exists only because of human ignorance, is one that\nmust commend itself to the truly religious and philosophical mind. Thus\nevil is not a fixed quantity in itself, it depends on the internal\nattitude each man holds with regard to externals as to whether they are\nevil or no.\n\nFor instance, it is not evil for an animal or savage to kill, for the\nlight of the higher law is not yet flaming brightly in their hearts.\nThat only is evil if we do what is displeasing to the Self. This may\nperhaps throw some light on the Simonian dogma of action by accident\n(_ex accidenti_), or institution ([Greek: thesei]), as opposed to action\naccording to nature (_naturaliter_ or [Greek: phusei])--evidently the\nsame idea as the teaching of Heracleitus to act according to nature\n([Greek: kata phusin]) which he explains as according to the\nUnmanifested Harmony which we can hear by straining our ears to catch\nthat still small voice within, the Voice of the Silence, the Logos or\nSelf. Simon presumably refers to this in the phrase \"the things which\nsound within\" ([Greek: ta enaecha]), an idea remarkably confirmed by\nPsellus,[129] who quotes the following Logion:\n\n     When thou seest a most holy, formless Fire shining and bounding\n     throughout the depths of the whole Cosmos, give ear to the Voice of\n     the Fire.\n\nThis brings us to a consideration of the teachings of Simon with regard\nto the Lesser World, the Microcosm, Man, and to the scheme of his\nsoteriology. Evidently Simon taught the ancient, immemorial doctrine\nthat the Microcosm Man was the Mirror and Potentiality of the Cosmos,\nthe Macrocosm, as we have already seen above. Whatever was true of the\nemanation of the Universe, was also true of Man, whatever was true of\nthe Macrocosmic Aeons was true of the Microcosmic Aeons in Man, which\nare potentially the same as those of the Cosmos, and will develop into\nthe power and grandeur of the latter, if they can find suitable\nexpression, or a fit vehicle. This view will explain the reason of the\nancients for saying that we could only perceive that of which we have a\ngerm already within us. Thus it is that Empedocles taught:\n\n     By earth earth we perceive; by water, water; by aether, aether;\n     fire, by destructive fire; by friendship, friendship; and strife by\n     bitter strife.\n\nAnd if the potentiality of all resided in every man, the teaching on\nthis point most forcibly has been, _Qui se cognoscit, in se omnia\ncognoscit_--He who knows himself, knows all in himself--as Q. Fabius\nPictor tells us. And, therefore, the essential of moral and spiritual\ntraining in ancient times was the attainment of Self-Knowledge--that is\nto say, the attainment of the certitude that there is a divine nature\nwithin every man, which is of infinite capacity to absorb universal\nWisdom; that, in brief, Man was _essentially_ one with Deity.\n\nWith Simon, as with the Hermetic philosophers of ancient Egypt, all\nthings were interrelated by correspondence, analogy, and similitude.\n\"As above, so below,\" is the teaching on the Smaragdine Table of\nHermes. Therefore, whatever happened to the divine Epinoia, the Supreme\nMother, among the Aeons, happened also to the human Spiritual Soul or\nMonadic Essence, in its evolution through all stages of manifestation.\nThis Soul is shut into all forms and bodies, successively up to the\nstage of man.\n\nFrom one point of view this teaching has been conclusively proved by\nModern Science. The evolution of the external form has been traced\nthroughout all the kingdoms and is no longer in question. The ancient\nteachers of evolution, though less exact in detail, were more accurate\nin fact, in postulating a \"something within\" which alone could make the\nexternal evolution of form of any intelligible purpose. The Spiritual\nSoul--the Life, Consciousness, Spirit, Intelligence, whatever we may\nchoose to call it--was formless in itself, but ever assuming new forms\nby a process called metempsychosis, metasomatosis, metangismos, etc.,\nwhich in the human stage becomes re\u00efncarnation, the rebirth or\nPunarjanman of the Hind\u00fbs.\n\nSo much has been written on metempsychosis and re\u00efncarnation of late\nthat it is hardly necessary to dwell on a now so familiar idea. In its\nwidest sense the whole process of nature is subject to this mode of\nexistence, and in its more restricted sense it is the path of pilgrimage\nof the Soul in the desert of Matter. In treating of a philosophical\nconception, which has already been completely established as far as its\n\"visible side\" is concerned by the researches of Modern Science in the\nfield of evolution, it is a waste of time to obscure the main issue by a\nrehashing of the superstitious belief that the human Soul might pass\nback to the brute. It may be that this superstition arose from the\nconsideration that the body and lower vestures of the Soul were shed off\nand gradually absorbed by the lower creation in the alchemical processes\nof nature. This was the fate of the \"Purgations\" of the Soul, but the\nSoul itself when once it had passed from bodies of the lower kingdoms,\nto bodies in the man-stage, could not retrogress beyond the limits of\nthat human kingdom.\n\nBy a glance at the Diagram, and regarding it from the microcosmic point\nof view, it is easy to see that the inner nature of man is more complex\nthan the elementary trichotomy of Body, Soul, and Spirit, might lead us\nto suppose. Each plane of Being, for which the Soul has its own\nappropriate Vesture, is generated from an \"indivisible point,\" as Simon\ncalled it, a zero-point, to use a term of modern Chemistry; six of which\nare shown in the Diagram, and each plane of Being is bounded by such\nzero-points, for they are points like that of the Circle whose centre is\neverywhere and circumference nowhere.\n\nTo pass on to the soteriology of Simon. The general concept of this\npresents no difficulty to the student of Eastern Religions. The idea\nthat the great teachers are Avat\u00e2ras, incarnations, or descents, of the\nSupreme Being, appearing on earth to aid mankind, is simple enough to\ncomprehend in itself, and would be open to little objection, were it not\nfor the theological dogmas and mythological legends that are wont to be\nso busily woven round the lives of such teachers. In the present age it\nis hardly necessary for us, with the experience of the past before our\neyes, to raise dissension as to whether such a manifestation is entirely\ndivine, or entirely human, or perfectly human and divine at one and the\nsame time, or neither or all of these.\n\nEastern philosophy, regarding not only the external phenomenal world as\never-changing and impermanent, but also all appearance or\nmanifestation--no matter how subjective it may be to us now--as not the\none Truth in itself, which it claims alone to be without change, it is\neasy to see the reason why the Gnostic Philosophers for the most part\nheld to Doceticism--that is to say that the body of a Saviour was not\nthe Saviour himself, but an appearance. The heat of polemical\ncontroversy may have led to exaggerated views on both sides, but the\nphilosophical mind will not be distressed at the thought that the body\nis an appearance or mask of the real man, and that it forms no part of\nhis eternal possession. None the less the body is real to us here, for\nwe all have bodies of a like nature, and appearances are real to\nappearances. Yet this does not invalidate the further consideration that\nthere are other bodies, vestures, or vehicles of consciousness, besides\nthe gross physical \"coat of skin,\" for the use of the spiritual man,\neach being an \"appearance\" in comparison to the higher vehicle, which is\nin its turn an \"appearance\" to that which is more subtle and less\nmaterial or substantial than itself.\n\nThus, in the descent from the Divine World, the Soul transforms itself,\nor clothes itself in forms, or bodies, or vestures, which it weaves out\nof its own substance, like to the Powers of the Worlds it passes\nthrough, for every Soul has a different vehicle of consciousness for\nevery World or Plane.\n\nBut the doctrine of the Soter, or Saviour, does not apply until the\nChrist-stage or consummation is reached. Following the idea of rebirth,\nthere is a spiritual life cycle, or life-thread, on which the various\nearth-lives are strung, as beads on a necklace, each successive life\nbeing purer and nobler, as the Soul gains control of matter, or the\ndriver control of the chariot and steeds that speed him through the\nexperiences of life. As the end of this great cycle approaches, an\nearthly vehicle is evolved that can show forth the divine spirit in all\nthe fulness possible to this world or phase of evolution.\n\nNow as the problem can be viewed from either the internal or external\npoint of view, we have the mystery of the Soul depicted both from the\nside of the involution of spirit into matter and of the evolution of\nmatter into spirit. If, on the one hand, we insist too strongly on one\nview, we shall only have a one-sided conception of the process; if, on\nthe other, we neglect one factor, we shall never solve the at present\nunknown quantity of the equation. Thus the Soul is represented as the\n\"lost sheep\" struggling in the meshes of the net of matter, passing from\nbody to body, and the Spirit is represented as descending, transforming\nitself through the spheres, in order to finally rescue its Syzygy from\nthe bonds that are about her.\n\nThe Soul aspires to the Spirit and the Spirit takes thought for the\nSoul; as the Simonians expressed it:\n\n     The male (Heaven, i.e., the Nous or Christ, or Spiritual Soul)\n     looks down from above and takes thought for its co-partner (or\n     Syzygy); while the Earth (i.e., the Epinoia or Jesus, or Human\n     Soul) from below receives from the Heaven the intellectual (in the\n     spiritual and philosophical sense, of course) fruits that come down\n     to it and are cognate with the Earth (i.e., of the same nature\n     essentially as Epinoia, who is essentially one with Nous).\n\nWhen this mystery is represented dramatically, so to say, and\npersonified, these two aspects of the Soul are depicted as two persons.\nThus we have Simon and Helen, his favourite disciple, Krishna and\nArjuna, etc. In the Canonical Gospels the favourite disciple is said to\nbe John, and the women-disciples are placed well in the background.\nIn the Gnostic Gospels, however, the women-disciples are not so\nostracized, and the view taken by these early communities of\nphilosophical and mystical Christians throws much light on that\nwonderful history of the Magdalene that has so touched the heart of\nChristendom. For instance, in the _Pistis-Sophia_, the chief of all the\ndisciples, the most spiritual and intuitive, is Mary Magdalene. This is\nnot without significance when we remember the love of the Christ for\nMary \"out of whom he had cast _seven_ devils.\"\n\nThe allegory is a striking one, and perfectly comprehensible to the\nstudent of comparative religion. As there are seven Aeons in the\nSpiritual World, seven principles or aspects of the Spiritual Soul, so\nhere on Earth, by analogy, there are seven lower aspects, or impure\nreflections. As there are seven Cardinal Virtues, the Prajn\u00e2-P\u00e2ramit\u00e2s,\nor Perfections of Wisdom, of the Buddhists, so there are seven Cardinal\nVices, and these must be cast out by the spiritual will, before the\nrepentant Mary, or Human Soul, can be purified.\n\nThis is the mystery of the Helen, the \"lost sheep.\" Then follows the\nmystical marriage of the Lamb, the union of the Human and Spiritual Soul\nin man, referred to so often in the Gospels and other mystical\nscriptures.\n\nNaturally the language used is symbolical, and has naught to do with\nsex, in any sense. Woe unto him or her who takes these allegories of the\nSoul as literal histories, for nothing but sorrow will follow such\nmaterialization of divine mysteries. If Simon or his followers fell into\nthis error, they worked their own downfall, under the Great Law, as\nsurely do all who forge such bonds of matter for their own enslavement.\n\nBut with condemnation we have nothing to do; they alone who are without\nsin have the _right_ to cast stones at the Magdalenes of this world; and\nthey who are truly without sin use their purity to cleanse their\nfellows, and do not sully it with the stains of self-righteous\ncondemnation. We, ordinary men and women of the age, are all \"lost\nsheep,\" human souls struggling in ignorance; shall we then stone our\nfellows because their theology has a different nomenclature to our own?\nFor man was the same in the past as he is to-day. The Human Soul has\never the same hopes and fears, loves and hates, passions and\naspirations, no matter how the mere form of their expression differs.\nThat which is important is the attitude we hold to the forms with which\nwe are surrounded. To-day the form of our belief is changed; the fashion\nof our dress is scientific and not allegorical, but are we any nearer\nthe realization that it is a dress and no more, and not the real\nexpression of the true man within?\n\nLet us now take a brief glance at the Symbolical Tree of Life, which\nplays so important a part in the Simonian Gn\u00f4sis. Not, however, that it\nwas peculiar to this system, for several of the schools use the same\nsymbology. For instance, in the _Pistis-Sophia_[130] the idea is\nimmensely expanded, and there is much said of an Aeonian Hierarchy\ncalled the Five Trees. As this, however, may have been a later\ndevelopment, let us turn to the ancient Hind\u00fb Sh\u00e2stras, and select one\nout of the many passages that could be adduced, descriptive of the\nAshvattha Tree, the Tree of Life, \"the Ashvattha of golden wings,\" where\nthe bird-souls get their wings and fly away happily, as the\n_Sanatsuj\u00e1t\u00eeya_ tells us. The passage we choose is from the _Bhagavad\nG\u00eet\u00e2_, that marvellous philosophical episode from the _Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata_,\nwhich from internal evidence, and at the very lowest estimate, must be\nplaced at a date anterior to Simon. At the beginning of the fifteenth\nAdy\u00e2ya we read:\n\n     They say the imperishable Ashvattha is with root above and branches\n     below, of which the sacred hymns are the leaves. Who knows this, he\n     is a knower of knowledge. Upwards and downwards stretch its\n     branches, expanded by the potencies (Gunas); the sense-objects are\n     its sprouts. Downwards, too, its roots are stretched, constraining\n     to action in the world of men. Here neither its form is\n     comprehended, nor its end, nor beginning, nor its support. Having\n     cut with the firm sword of detachment (_sc._ non-attachment to the\n     fruit of action) this Ashvattha, with its overgrown roots, then\n     should he (the disciple) search out that Supreme whither they who\n     come never return again, (with the thought) that now he is come to\n     that primal Being, whence the evolution of old was emanated.\n\nFor what is this \"sword of detachment\" but another aspect of the \"fiery\nsword\" of Simon, which is turned about to guard the way to the Tree of\nLife? This \"sword\" is our passions and desires, which now keep us from\nthe golden-leaved Tree of Life, whence we may find wings to carry us to\nthe \"Father in Heaven.\" For once we have conquered Desire and turned it\ninto spiritual Will, it then becomes the \"Sword of Knowledge\"; and the\nway to the Tree of Spiritual Life being gained, the purified Life\nbecomes the \"Wings of the Great Bird\" on which we mount, to be carried\nto its Nest, where peace at last is found.\n\nThe simile of the Tree is used in many senses, not the least important\nof which is that of the heavenly \"vine\" of the re\u00efncarnating Soul, every\n\"life\" of which is a branch. This explains Simon's citation of the\nLogion so familiar to us in the _Gospel according to Luke_:\n\n     Every tree not bearing good fruit is cut down and cast into the\n     fire.\n\nThis also explains one of the inner meanings of the wonderful passage in\nthe _Gospel according to John_:\n\n     I am the true vine and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in\n     me that beareth not fruit he taketh away; and every branch that\n     beareth fruit he purgeth it that it may bear more fruit.[131]\n\nFor only the spiritual fruit of every life is harvested in the\n\"Store-house\" of the Divine Soul; the rest is shed off to be purified in\nthe \"Fire\" of earthly existence.\n\nInto the correspondence between the world-process of Nature, and that\nwhich takes place in the womb of mortal woman, it will not be necessary\nto enter at length. No doubt Simon taught many other correspondences\nbetween the processes of Cosmic Nature and Microcosmic Man, but what\nwere the details of this teaching we can in no way be certain. Simon\nmay have made mistakes in physiology, according to our present\nknowledge, but with the evidence before us all we can do is to suspend\nour judgment. For in the first place, we do not know that he has been\ncorrectly reported by his patristic antagonists, and, in the second, we\nare even yet too ignorant of the process of the nourishment of the\nfoetus to pronounce any _ex cathedr\u00e2_ statement. In any case Simon's\nexplanation is more in agreement with Modern Science than the generality\nof the phantasies on scientific subjects to which the uninstructed piety\nof the early Fathers so readily lent itself. As to whether the\nInitiated of the ancients did or did not know of the circulation of the\nblood and the functions of the arterial system, we must remain in doubt,\nfor both their well known method of concealing their knowledge and also\nthe absence of texts which may yet be discovered by the industry of\nmodern exploration teach us to hold our judgment in suspense.\n\nAgain, seeing the importance which the symbolical Tree played in the\nSimonian System, it may be that there was an esoteric teaching in the\nschool, which pointed out correspondences in the human body for mystical\npurposes, as has been the custom for long ages in India in the Science\nof Yoga. In the human body are _at least_ two \"Trees,\" the nervous, and\nvascular systems. The former has its \"root\" above in the cerebrum, the\nlatter has its roots in the heart. Along the trunks and branches run\ncurrents of \"nervous ether\" and \"life\" respectively, and the Science of\nYoga teaches its disciples to use both of these forces for mystical\npurposes. It is highly probable also that the Gnostics taught the same\nprocesses to their pupils, as we know for a fact that the Neo-Platonists\ninculcated like practices. From these considerations, then, it may be\nsupposed that Simon was not so ignorant of the real laws of the\ncirculation of the blood as might otherwise be imagined; and as to the\nnourishment of the embryo, modern authorities are at loggerheads, the\nmajority, however, inclining to the opinion of Simon, that the foetus\nis nourished through the umbilical cord.[132]\n\nThe last point of importance to detain us, before passing on to a notice\non the magical practices ascribed to Simon, is the allegorical use made\nby the Simonians of Scripture. Here again we have little to do with the\ndetails reported, but only with the idea. It was a common belief of the\nsages of antiquity that the mythological part of the sacred writings of\nthe nations were to be understood in an allegorical fashion. Not to\nspeak of India, we have the Neo-Platonic School with its analogetical\nmethods of interpretation, and the mention of a work of Porphyry in\nwhich an allegorical interpretation of the _Iliad_ was attempted.\nAllegorical shows of a similar nature also were enacted in the Lesser\nMysteries and explained in the Greater, as Julian tells us in the\n_Mother of the Gods_,[133] and Plutarch on the _Cessation of\nOracles_.[134]\n\nMuch evidence could be adduced that this was a widespread idea held by\nthe learned of antiquity, but space does not here allow a full\ntreatment of the subject. What is important to note is that Simon\nclaimed this as a method of his School, and therefore, in dealing with\nhis system, we cannot leave out so important a factor, and persist in\ntaking allegorical and symbolical expressions as literal teachings. We\nmay say that the method is misleading and has led to much superstition\namong the ignorant, but we have no right to criticize the literal and\nhistorical meaning of an allegory, and then fancy that we have\ncriticized the doctrine it enshrines. This has been the error of all\nrationalistic critics of the world bibles. They have wilfully set on one\nside the whole method of ancient religious teaching, and taken as\nliteral history and narrative what was essentially allegorical and\nsymbolical. Perhaps the reason for this may be in the fact that wherever\nreligion decays and ignorance spreads herself, there the symbolical and\nallegorical is materialized into the historical and literal. The spirit\nis forgotten, the letter is deified. Hence the re\u00e4ction of the\nrationalistic critic against the materialism and literalism of sacred\nverities. Nevertheless, such criticism does not go deep enough to affect\nthe real truths of religion and the convictions of the human soul, any\nmore than an aesthetic criticism on the shape of the Roman letters and\nArabic figures can affect the truth of an algebraical formula.\nRationalistic criticism may stir people from literalism and dogmatic\ncrystallization, in fact it has done much in this way, but it does not\nreach the hidden doctrines.\n\nNow Simon contended that many of the narrations of Scripture were\nallegorical, and opposed those who held to the dead-letter\ninterpretation. To the student of comparative religion, it is difficult\nto see what is so highly blameworthy in this. On the contrary, this view\nis so worthy of praise, that it deserves to be widely adopted to-day, at\nthe latter end of the nineteenth century. To understand antiquity, we\nmust follow the methods of the wise among the ancients, and the method\nof allegory and parable was the manner of teaching of the great Masters\nof the past.\n\nBut supposing we grant this, and admit that all Scriptures possess an\ninner meaning and lend themselves to interpretation on every plane of\nbeing and thought, who is to decide whether any particular\ninterpretation is just or no? Already we have writers arising, giving\ndiametrically opposite interpretations of the same mystical narrative,\nand though this may be an advance on bald physical literalism, it is by\nno means encouraging to the instructed and philosophical mind.\n\nIf the Deity is no respecter of persons, times, or nations, and if no\nage is left without witness of the Divine, it would seem to be in\naccordance with the fitness of things that all religions in their purity\nare one in essence, no matter how overgrown with error they may have\nbecome through the ignorance of man. If, again, the root of true\nReligion is one, and the nature of the Soul and of the inner\nconstitution of things is identical in all climes and times, as far as\nits _main features_ are concerned, no matter what terminology, allegory,\nand symbology may be employed to describe it; and not only this, but if\nit be true that such subjective things are as potent facts in human\nconsciousness as any that exist, as indeed is evidenced by the\nunrivalled influence such things have had on human hearts and actions\nthroughout the history of the world--then we must consider that an\ninterpretation that fits only one system and is found entirely\nunsuitable to the rest, is no part of universal religion, and is due\nrather to the ingenuity of the interpreter than to a discovery of any\nlaw of subjective nature. The method of comparative religion alone can\ngive us any certainty of correct interpretation, and a refusal to\ninstitute such a comparison should invalidate the reliability of all\nsuch enquiries.\n\nNow Simon is reported to have endeavoured to find an inner meaning in\nscriptural narratives and mythologies, and against this method we can\nhave nothing to say; it is only when a man twists the interpretation to\nsuit his own prejudices that danger arises. Simon, however, is shown to\nhave appealed to the various sacred literatures known in his time, an\neclectic and theosophical method, and one that cannot very well be\nlonger set on one side even in our own days.\n\nThe primitive church was not so forgetful of symbology as are the\nmajority of the Christian faith to-day. One of the commonest\nrepresentations of primitive Christian art was that of the \"Four\nRivers.\" As the Rev. Professor Cheetham tells us:\n\n     We find it repeated over and over again in the catacombs, either in\n     frescoes or in the sculptured ornaments of sarcophagi, and\n     sometimes on the bottoms of glass cups which have been discovered\n     therein.[135]\n\nThe interpretations given by the early divines were many and various; in\nnearly every case, however, it was an interpretation which applied to\nthe Christian system alone, and accentuated external differences. Little\nattempt was made to find an interpretation in nature, either objective\nor subjective, or in man. Simon, at any rate, made the attempt--an\neffort to broaden out into a universal system applying to all men at all\ntimes. This is also the real spirit of pure Christianity which is so\noften over-clouded by theological partisanship. A true interpretation\nmust stand the test of not only religious aspiration, but also\nphilosophical thought and scientific observation.\n\nNor again should we find cause to grieve at an attempted interpretation\nof the Trojan Horse, that was fabricated by the advice of Athena\n(Minerva-Epinoia), for did not George Stanley Faber, in the early years\nof this century, labour with much learning to prove its identity with\nthe Ark. True he only turned similar myths into the terms of one myth\nand got no further, but that was an advance on his immediate\npredecessors. Simon, however, had centuries before gone further than\nFaber, as far as theory is concerned, by seeking an interpretation in\nnature. But, in his turn, as far as our records go, he only attempted\nthe interpretation of one aspect of this graphic symbol, saying that it\ntypified \"ignorance.\" An interpretation, however, to be complete should\ncover all planes of consciousness and being from the physical human\nplane to the divine cosmic. The Ark floating on the Waters of the Deluge\nand containing the Germs of Life, the Mundane Egg in the Waters of\nSpace, and the Mare with her freight of armed warriors, all typify a\ngreat fact in nature, which may be studied scientifically in the\ndevelopment of the germ-cell, and ethically by analogy, as the egg of\nignorance, the germs in which are, from the lower aspect, our own evil\npassions.\n\nIn speaking of such allegories and tracing the correspondences between\ncertain symbologies and the natural facts of embryology, Simon speaks of\nthe \"cave\" which plays so important a part in so many religious\nallegories. As the child is born in a \"cave,\" so the \"new man\" is also\nborn in a \"cave,\" and all the Saviours are so recorded to have been born\nin their birth legends. The Mysteries of antiquity were for the most\npart solemnized in caves, or rock-cut temples. The Epoptae deemed such\ncaverns as symbols both of the physical world and Hades or the Unseen\nWorld, which surrounds every child of man. Into such a cave, in the\nmiddle of the Ocean, Cronus shut his children, as Porphyry[136] tells\nus. It was called by the name Petra, or Rock, and from such a Rock\nMithras is said to have been born.[137]\n\nFaber endeavours to identify this symbolical cave with the Ark,[138]\nwhich may be permissible from one aspect, as the womb of mother nature\nand of the human mother correspond analogically.\n\nIn the \"new birth\" of the mysteries, the Souls were typified as bees\nborn from the body of an ox, for they were to gather the honey of\nwisdom, and were born from the now dead body of their lower natures. In\nthe cave were two doors, one for immortals, the other for mortals. In\nthis connection the cave is the psychic womb that surrounds every man,\nof which Nicodemus displays such ignorance in the Gospels. It is the\nmicrocosmic Middle Distance; by one door the Lower Soul enters, and\nuniting with its immortal consort, who descends through the door of the\nimmortals, becomes immortal.\n\nThe cavern is overshadowed by an olive tree--again the Tree of Life to\nwhich we have referred above--on the branches of which the doves rest,\nand bring back the leaves to the ark of the body and the prisoner within\nit.\n\nBut space does not permit us to pursue further this interesting subject,\nwhich requires an entire treatise by itself, or even a series of\nvolumes. Enough, however, has been said to show that the method of\ninterpretation employed by Simon is not without interest and profit, and\nthat the tolerant spirit of to-day which animates the best minds and\nhearts in Christendom will find no reason to mete out to Simon wholesale\ncondemnation on this score.\n\nThere are also many other points of interest that could be elaborated\nupon, in the fragments of the system we are reviewing, but as my task is\nin the form of an essay, and not an exhaustive work, I must be content\nto pass them by for the present, and to hurry on to a few words on that\nstrange and misunderstood subject, commonly known as Magic.\n\nWhat Magic, the \"Great Art\" of the ancients, was in reality is now as\ndifficult to discover as is the true Religion that underlies all the\ngreat religions of the world. It was an art, a practice, the Great and\nSupreme Art of the most Sacred Science of God, the Universe and Man. It\nwas and it is all this in its highest sense, and its method was what is\nnow called \"creation.\" As the Aeons imitated the Boundless Power and\nemanated or created in their turn, so could man imitate the Aeons and\nemanate or create in his turn. But \"creation\" is not generation, it is a\nwork of the \"mind,\" in the highest sense of the word. By purification\nand aspiration, by prayer and fasting, man had to make his mind\nharmonious with the Great Mind of the Universe, and so by imitation\ncreate pure vehicles whereby his consciousness could be carried in\nevery direction of the Universe. Such spiritual operations required the\ngreatest purity and piety, real purity and true piety, without disguise\nor subterfuge, for man had to face himself and his God, before whom no\ndisguise was possible. The most secret motives, the most hidden desires,\nwere revealed by the stern self-discipline to which the Adepts of the\nScience subjected themselves.\n\nBut as in all things here below, so with the Art of Magic, it was\ntwo-fold. Above I have only spoken of the bright side of it, the path\nalong which the World-Saviours have trodden, for no one can gain\nentrance to the path of self-sacrifice and compassion unless his heart\nburns with love for all that lives, and unless he treads the way of\nwisdom only in order that he may become that Path itself for the\nsalvation of the race. But there is the other side; knowledge is\nknowledge irrespective of the use to which it may be put. The sword of\nknowledge is two-edged, as remarked above, and may be put to good or\nevil use, according to the selfishness or unselfishness of the\npossessor.\n\nBut _corruptio optimi pessima_, and as the employment of wisdom for the\nbenefit of mankind--as, for instance, curing the sick, physically and\nmorally--is the highest, so the use of any abnormal power for the\nadvantage of self is the vilest sin that man can commit.\n\nThere are strange analogies in Nature, and the higher the spiritual, the\nlower the corresponding material process; so that we find in the history\nof magic--perhaps the longest history in the world--extremes ever\nmeeting. Abuse of spiritual powers, and the vilest physical processes,\nnoxious, fantastic, and pestilential, are recorded in the pages of\nso-called magical literature, but such foul deeds are no more real Magic\nthan are the horrors of religious fanaticism the outcome of true\nMohammedanism or Christianity. This is the abuse, the superstition, the\ndegeneration of all that is good and true, rendered all the more vile\nbecause it pertains to denser planes of matter than even the physical.\nIt is a strange thing that the highest should pair with the lowest where\nman is concerned, but it ever remains true that the higher we climb the\nlower we may fall.\n\nMan is much the same in nature at all times, and though the Art was\npractised in its purity by the great World-Teachers and their immediate\nfollowers, whether we call it by the name Magic or no, it ever fell\ninto abuse and degeneracy owing to the ingrained ignorance and\nselfishness of man. Thus the Deity and Gods or Daemons of one nation\nbecame the Devil and Demons of another; the names were changed, the\nfacts remained the same. For if we are to reject all such things as\nsuperstition, hallucination, and what not, the good must go with the\nbad. But facts, whether good or bad, are still facts, and man is still\nman, no matter how he changes the fashion of his belief. The followers\nof the World-Teachers cannot hold to the so-called \"miracles\" of their\nrespective Masters and reject all others as false in fact, no matter\nfrom what source they may believe they emanate. In nature there can be\nnothing supernatural, and as man stands mid-way between the divine and\ninfernal, if we accept the energizing of the one side of his nature, we\nmust also accept that of the other. Both are founded on nature and\nscience, both are under law and order.\n\nThe great Master of Christendom is reported to have told his disciples\nthat if they had but faith they should do greater works than even he had\ndone. Either this was false or else the followers have been false to\ntheir Teacher. There is no escape from the dilemma. And such \"works\" are\nto be wrought by divine Magic alone, or if the term be disliked, by\nwhatever name the great Science of the Soul and Divine things may be\ncalled.\n\nFor the last two hundred years or so it has been the fashion to deride\nall such matters, perhaps owing to a re\u00e4ction against over-credulity on\nthe part of those who held to the letter of the law and forgot its\nspirit; but to-day it is no longer possible to entirely set aside this\nall-important part of man's nature, and it now calls for as strict a\nscientific treatment as the facts of the physical universe have been\nsubjected to.\n\nHypnotism, Mesmerism, Spiritualism and Psychical Research, are the\ncloud no bigger than a man's hand that is forcing the facts of Magic\nagain on the attention of both the theological and scientific world.\nHypnotism and Psychical Research are already becoming respectable and\nattracting the attention of the generality of men of science and of our\nclergy. Spiritualism and Mesmerism are still tabooed, but wait their\nturn for popular recognition, having already been recognized by pioneers\ndistinguished in science and other professions.\n\nOf course I speak only of the facts of these arts, I do not speak of the\ntheories put forward.\n\nAll these processes are in the very outermost court of the Temple of\nTrue Magic, even if they are not outside the precinct. But they are\nsufficient for our purpose, and should make the serious thinker and\nunprejudiced enquirer pause before pronouncing the words, superstition\nand hallucination, in too confident a tone, for he now must see the\nnecessity of having a clear idea of what he means by the terms.\n\nIt is not uncommon of late to hear the superficially instructed setting\ndown everything to \"suggestion,\" a word they have picked up from modern\nhypnotic research, or \"telepathy,\" a name invented by psychical\nresearch--the ideas being as old as the world--forgetting that their\nmind remains in precisely the same attitude with regard to such matters\nas it was in previously when they utterly denied the possibility of\nsuggestion and telepathy. But to the earnest and patient student\nhypnotism and the rest are but the public re\u00e4ppearance of what has\nalways existed in spite of the denial of two hundred years or so, and\ninstead of covering the whole ground is but the forward spray from the\nreturning wave of psychism which will sweep the nations off their feet\nand moral balance, if they will not turn to the experience of the past\nand gain strength to withstand the inrush.\n\nThe higher forms of all these things, in the Western World, should have\nnow been in the hands of the ministers of the Church, in which case we\nshould not have had the re\u00e4ppearance of such powers in the hands of\nvulgar stage exhibitions and mercenary public mediumship.\n\nBut so it is; and in vain is it any longer to raise the cry of fraud and\nhallucination on the one hand and of the devil on the other. This is a\nmere shirking of responsibility, and nothing but a reasonable\ninvestigation and an insistence on the highest ideals of life will help\nhumanity.\n\nI do not intend to enter into any review of the \"wonders\" attributed to\nSimon, neither to deny them as hallucinations, nor attribute them to the\ndevil, nor explain them away by \"suggestion.\" As a matter of fact we do\nnot even know whether Simon did or pretended to do any of the precise\nthings mentioned. All we are competent to decide is the general\nquestion, viz., that any use of abnormal power is pernicious if done for\na personal motive, and will assuredly, sooner or later, react on the\ndoer.\n\nHere and there in the patristic accounts we light on a fact worthy of\nconsideration, as, for example, when Simon is reported to have denied\nthat the real soul of a boy could be exorcised, and said that it was\nonly a daemon, in this case a sub-human intelligence or elemental, as\nthe Mediaeval Kabalists called them. Again the Simonians are said to have\nexpelled any from their Mysteries who worshipped the statues of Zeus or\nAthena as being representatives of Simon and Helen; thus showing that\nthey were symbolical figures for some purpose other than ordinary\nworship; and probably the sect in its purity possessed a body of\nteaching which threw light on many of the religious practices of the\ntimes, and gave them a rational interpretation, quite at variance with\nthe fantastic diabolism which the Fathers have so loudly charged against\nthem.\n\nThe legends of magic are the same in all countries, fantastic enough to\nus in the nineteenth century, in all conscience, and most probably\nexaggerated out of all correct resemblance to facts by the excited\nimagination of the legend-tellers, but still it is not all imagination,\nand after sifting out even ninety-nine per cent of rubbish, the residue\nthat remains is such vast evidence to the main facts that it is fairly\noverwhelming, and deserves the investigation of every honest student.\n\nBut the study is beset with great difficulty, and if left in the hands\nof untrained thinkers, as are the majority of those who are interested\nin such matters in the present day, will only result in a new phase of\ncredulity and superstition. And such a disastrous state of affairs will\nbe the distinct fault of the leaders of thought in the religious,\nphilosophical, and scientific world, if they refuse the task which is\nnaturally theirs, and if they are untrue to the responsibility of their\nposition as the directors, guardians, and adjusters of the popular mind.\nDenial is useless, mere condemnation is of small value, explanation\nalone will meet the difficulty.\n\nThus when we are brought face to face with the recital of magical\nwonders as attributed to Simon in the patristic legends, it is not\nsufficient to sweep them on one side and ticket them with the\ncontemptuous label of \"superstition.\" We must recognize that whether or\nnot these things were actually done by Simon, the ancient world both\nPagan and Christian firmly believed in their reality, and that if our\nonly attitude towards them is one of blank denial, we include in that\ndenial the possibility of the so-called \"miracles\" of Christianity and\nother great religions, and therewith invalidate one of the most\nimportant factors of religious thought and history. That the present\nattitude of denial is owing to the absurd explanation of the phenomena\ngiven by the majority of the ancient worthies, is easily admissible, but\nthis is no reason why the denial of the possibilities of the existence\nof such things should be logical or scientific.\n\nAs to the wonders ascribed to Simon, though extraordinary, they are\npuerile compared to the ideals of the truly religious mind, and if\nSimon used such marvels as proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he\nunduly took advantage of the ignorance of the populace and was untrue to\nhis better nature.\n\nAgain, setting aside all historical criticism, if Simon, as the _Acts_\nreport, thought to purchase spiritual powers with money, or that those\nwho were really in possession of such powers would ever sell them, we\ncan understand the righteous indignation of the apostles, though we\ncannot understand their cursing a brother-man. The view of the Christian\nwriter on this point is a true one, but the dogma that every operation\nwhich is not done in the name of the particular Master of Christendom is\nof the Devil--or, to avoid personifications, is evil--can hardly find\nfavour with those who believe in the brotherhood of the whole race and\nthat Deity is one, no matter under what form worshipped.\n\nFinally, to sum up the matter, we have cited our authorities, and\nreviewed them, and then endeavoured to sift out what is good from the\nheap, leaving the rubbish to its fate. Removed as we are by so many\ncenturies from the fierce strife of religious controversy which so\ndeeply marked the rise of Christianity, we can view the matter with\nimpartiality and seek to redress the errors that are patent both on the\nside of orthodoxy and of heterodoxy. It is true we cannot be free of the\npast, but it is also true that to identify ourselves with the hates and\nstrifes of the ancients, is merely to retrogress from the path of\nprogress. On the contrary, our duty should be to identify ourselves with\nall that is good and beautiful and true in the past, and so gleaning it\ntogether, bind it into a sheaf of corn that, when ground in the mills of\ncommon-sense and practical experience, may feed the millions of every\ndenomination who for the most part are starving on the unsatisfying\nhusks of crude dogmatism. There is no need for a new revelation, in\nwhatever sense the word is understood, but there is every need for an\nexplanation of the old revelations and the undeniable facts of human\nexperience. If the Augean stables of the materialism that is so\nprevalent in the religion, philosophy and science of to-day, are to be\ncleansed, the spiritual sources of the world-religions can alone be\neffectual for their cleansing, but these are at present hidden by the\nrocks and overgrowth of dogma and ignorance. And this overgrowth can\nonly be removed by explanation and investigation, and each who works at\nthe task is, consciously or unconsciously, in the train of the Hercules\nwho is pioneering the future of humanity.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 96: _Julius Caesar_, III. ii. 106-8.]\n\n[Footnote 97: _Op. cit._ i. 4. Compare the Diagram and explanation of\nthe Middle Distance _infra_. The Moon is the \"Lord\" of the lower plane\nof the Middle Distance, the Astral Light of the medieval Kabalists. This\nis a doctrine common to the Hermetic, Ved\u00e2ntic, and many other schools\nof Antiquity.]\n\n[Footnote 98: xi. 37.]\n\n[Footnote 99: _Philos._, ix. 10.]\n\n[Footnote 100: _Zohar_, i. 50_b_, Amsterdam and Brody Editions: quoted\nin Isaac Myer's _Qabbalah_, pp. 376, 377.]\n\n[Footnote 101: See Cory's _Ancient Fragments_, 2nd ed.; not the re\u00ebdited\nthird edition, which is no longer Cory's work.]\n\n[Footnote 102: [Greek: eisi panta puros henos ekgegaota]--_Psell.\n24--Plet. 30._]\n\n[Footnote 103: _Proc. in Theol._ 333--_in Tim._ 157.]\n\n[Footnote 104: [Greek: paegaious krataeras]--I have ventured the above\ntranslation for this difficult combination from the meaning of the term\n[Greek: paegae], found elsewhere in the Oracles, in the metaphorical\nsense of \"source\" (compare also Plato, _Phaed._ 245 C., 856 D., [Greek:\npaegae kai archae chinaeseos]--\"the source and beginning of motion\"),\nand also from the meaning of [Greek: krataer] (_crat\u00ear_), as \"a\ncup-shaped hollow.\"\n\nThe idea of this Crater is interestingly exemplified in the Twelfth Book\nof Hermes Trismegistus, called \"His Crater, or Monas,\" as follows:\n\n\"10. _Tat._ But wherefore, Father, did not God distribute the Mind to\nall men?\n\n\"11. _Herm._ Because it pleased him, O Son, to set that in the middle\namong all souls, as a reward to strive for.\n\n\"12. _Tat._ And where hath he set it?\n\n\"13. _Herm._ Filling a large Cup or Bowl (Crater) therewith, he sent it\ndown, giving also a Cryer or Proclaimer.\n\n\"14. And he commanded him to proclaim these things to the souls of men.\n\n\"15. Dip and wash thyself, thou that art able, in this Cup or Bowl: Thou\nthat believeth that thou shalt return to him that sent this cup; thou\nthat acknowledgest whereunto thou wert made.\n\n\"16. As many, therefore, as understood the Proclamation, and were\n_baptized_, or dowsed into the _Mind_, these were made partakers of\nknowledge, and became perfect men, receiving the Mind.\"\n\nThis striking passage explains the mystic \"Baptism of Fire,\" or Mind,\nwhereby man became one with his Divine Monas, which is indeed his\n\"Mother Vortex\" or Source.]\n\n[Footnote 105: _Proc. in Parm._]\n\n[Footnote 106: _Proc. in Theol. Plat._, 171, 172.]\n\n[Footnote 107: _Proc. in Tim._, 167.]\n\n[Footnote 108: _Proc. in Theol._, 321.]\n\n[Footnote 109: _Proc. in Crat._]\n\n[Footnote 110: _Dionys._, xiv.]\n\n[Footnote 111: _Praep. Evan._, i. 10.]\n\n[Footnote 112: The names of these seven flames of the Fire, with their\nsurface translations, are as follows: K\u00e2l\u00ee, Dark-blue; Kar\u00e2l\u00ee, Terrible;\nMano-jav\u00e2, Swift as Thought; Su-lohit\u00e2, Deep-red colour;\nSu-dh\u00fbmra-varn\u00e2, Deep-purple colour; Ugr\u00e2 or Sphulingin\u00ee, Hot,\nPassionate, or Sparkling; Prad\u00eept\u00e2, Shining, Clear. These are the\nliteral meanings; the mystic meanings are very different, and among\nother things denote the septenary prismatic colours and other\nseptenaries in nature.]\n\n[Footnote 113: _Hibbert lectures_, 1887: \"Lecture on the Origin and\nGrowth of Religion as illustrated by the Religion of the Ancient\nBabylonians,\" pp. 179, 180.]\n\n[Footnote 114: See Schwartze's _Pistis-Sophia_ and Am\u00e9lineau's _Notice\nsur le Papyrus Gnostique Bruce_.]\n\n[Footnote 115: _De Mysteriis Liber_, vii. 4.]\n\n[Footnote 116: Compare also _Herodot._ ii, 54--[Greek: phonae\nanthropaeiae].]\n\n[Footnote 117: _Lib._ v.]\n\n[Footnote 118: _Psel._ 7.]\n\n[Footnote 119: _Psel. Schol. in Orac. Magic_, p. 70.]\n\n[Footnote 120: Theodoret gives [Greek: ennoia].]\n\n[Footnote 121: A. Aphthartos Morph\u00ea. B. Nous t\u00f4n Hol\u00f4n. c. Epinoia\nMegal\u00ea. D. Eik\u00f4n. a. Nous. b. Ph\u00f4n\u00ea. c. Logismos. d. Enthum\u00easis. e.\nOnoma. f. Epinoia.]\n\n[Footnote 122: xi. 47.]\n\n[Footnote 123: _Ibid._, xi. 18, 38.]\n\n[Footnote 124: Wilson's Trans. i. pp. 55 _et seqq._]\n\n[Footnote 125: Prabhav\u00e2pyaya: Pra-bhava=the forth-being or origin, and\nApy-aya=the return or reabsorption. It is the same idea as the Simonian\nTreasure-house.]\n\n[Footnote 126: Ayana simply means \"moving.\"]\n\n[Footnote 127: _M\u00e2nava-Dharma Sh\u00e2stra_, i. 10.]\n\n[Footnote 128: _Op. cit._, iv. 251.]\n\n[Footnote 129: 14.]\n\n[Footnote 130: This Gnostic gospel, together with the treatises\nentitled, _The Book of the Gnoses of the Invisible_ and _The Book of the\nGreat Logos in each Mystery_ (the Bruce MSS.), is especially referred\nto, as, with the exception of the _Codex Nazaraeus_, being the only\nGnostic works remaining to us. All else comes from the writings of the\nFathers.]\n\n[Footnote 131: xv, 1, 2]\n\n[Footnote 132: The most advanced theory, however, is that the foetus\nderives nourishment from the amniotic fluid, and Dr. Jerome A. Anderson\nsums up his highly interesting paper on the \"Nutrition of the Foetus\" in\nthe _American Journal of Obstetrics_, Vol. XXI, July, 1888, as follows:\n\n\"To briefly sum up the facts supporting amniotic nutrition:\n\n\"1st. The constant presence of nutritive substances in the amniotic\nfluid during the whole period of gestation.\n\n\"2nd. The certainty of the absorption by a growing, almost skinless,\nfoetus of any nutritive material in which it is constantly bathed.\n\n\"3rd. The permeability of the digestive tract at an early period, and\nthe necessary entrance therein, according to the laws of hydrostatics,\nof the albuminous amniotic fluid.\n\n\"4th. The presence of, as it seems to me, _bon\u00e2 fide_ d\u00e9bris of\ndigestion, or meconium, in the lower intestine.\n\n\"5th. The presence of urine in the bladder, and bile in the upper\nintestine; their normal locations.\n\n\"6th. The mechanical difficulties opposing direct nutrition through the\nplacenta, and the impossibility of nourishment by this method during the\nearly stages of embryonic life previous to the formation of the placenta\nor umbilical vesicle.\n\n\"7th. The evident material source of the fluid, as shown by the\nhydrorrheas of pregnancy, as well as in the exhaustion the mother\nexperiences, in some cases, at least, under its loss and rapid\nreproduction.\n\n\"8th. The entire absence during gestation of any trace of the placenta\nin certain animals, notably the salamander.\"]\n\n[Footnote 133: Oratio V, _In Matrem Deorum_.]\n\n[Footnote 134: _De Defectu Oraculorum_, xxi.]\n\n[Footnote 135: _Dictionary of Christian Antiquities_, art. \"Four Rivers,\nThe.\"]\n\n[Footnote 136: _The Homeric Cave of Nymphs_, [Greek: peri tou en\nOdusseia Numphon antrou].]\n\n[Footnote 137: [Greek: legousin ek petras gegennaesthai auton]--Just.\nMart. _Dial. cum. Tryph._]\n\n[Footnote 138: _Cabiri_, ii, 363.]","title":"Simon Magus: An Essay on the Founder of Simonianism Based on the Ancient Sources With a Re-Evaluation of His Philosophy and Teachings","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":34077}