Simon Magus Part 6

The Simon of the legends is so entirely outside any historical criticism, and the stories gleaned from the _Homilies_ and _Recognitions_ are so evidently fabrications--most probably added to the doctrinal narrative at a later date--and so obviously the stock-in-trade legends of magic, that not a solitary scholar supports their authenticity. Probably one of the reasons for this is the strong Ebionism of the narratives, which is by no means palatable to the orthodox taste. In this connection the following table of the Ebionite scheme of emanation may be of interest:

G.o.d.

(The One Being, the Principle of all things.) ______________________________________^___________________________________ / SPIRIT. MATTER.

The Four elements.

(This mixture produces) THE SON. THE DEVIL.

(The Leader of the future cycle.) (The leader of the present cycle.) GREAT THINGS. LITTLE THINGS.

(Heaven, light, life, etc.) (Earth, fire, death, etc.) ADAM. EVE.

(Truth.) (Error.) ________________ _______________/ / MAN.

(The union of Spirit and Body, of Truth and Error.) ________________/ _______________ / INFERIOR MEN. SUPERIOR MEN.

Ishmael. Isaac.

Esau. Jacob.

Aaron. Moses.

John the Baptist. Jesus.

Antichrist. Christ.

_____________________________________ ___________________________________/ V G.o.d.

(Completion, rest.)[85]

There remains but to mention the curious theory of Bauer and the Tubingen school. It is now established by recent theological criticism that the Clementine writings were the work of some member or members of the Elkesaites, a sect of the Ebionites, and that they were written at Rome somewhere in the third century. The Elkessaeans or Elkesaites founded their creed on a book called _Elkesai_, which purported to be an angelic revelation and which was remarkable for its hostility to the apostle Paul. As the _Recognitions_ contain much anti-Paulinism, Bauer and his school not only pointed out the Ebionite source of the Clementine literature, but also put forward the theory that whenever Simon Magus is mentioned Paul is intended; and that the narrative of the _Acts_ and the legends simply tell the tale of the jealousy of the elder apostles to Paul, and their attempt to keep him from the fullest enjoyment of apostolic privileges. But the latest scholarship shakes its head gravely at the theory, and however bitter controversialists the anti-Paulinists may have been, it is not likely that they would have gone so far out of their way to vent their feelings in so grotesque a fashion.

In conclusion of this Part let us take a general review of our authorities with regard to the life of Simon and the immoral practices attributed to his followers, including a few words of notice on the lost Simonian literature, and reserving the explanation of his system and some notice of magical practices for Part III.

I have distinguished the Simon of the fathers from the Simon of the legends, as to biography, "by convention" and not "by nature," as the Simonians would say, for the one and the other is equally on a mythical basis. It is easy to understand that the rejection of the Simon of the legends is a logical necessity for those who have to repudiate the Ebionite Clementines. Admit the authenticity of the narrative as regards Simon, and the authenticity of the other incidents about John the Baptist and Peter would have to be acknowledged; but this would never do, so Simon escapes from the clutches of his orthodox opponents as far as this count is concerned.

But the biographical incidents in the fathers are of a similar nature precisely to those in the Clementines, and their sources of information are so vague and unreliable, and at such a distance from the time of their supposed occurrence, that we have every reason to place them in the same category with the Clementine legends. Therefore, whether we reject the evidence or accept it, we must reject both accounts or accept both. To reject the one and accept the other is a prejudice that a partisan may be guilty of, but a position which no unbia.s.sed enquirer can with justice take up.

The legends, however, may find some excuse when it is remembered that they were current in a period when the metal of religious controversy was glowing at white heat. Orthodox Christians had their ears still tingling with the echoing of countless accusations of the foulest nature to which they had been subjected. Not a crime that was known or could be imagined that had not been brought against them; they naturally, therefore, returned the compliment when they could do so with safety, and though in these more peaceful and tolerant days much as we may regret the flinging backwards and forwards of such vile accusations, we may still find some excuse for it in the pa.s.sionate enthusiasm of the times, always, however, remembering that the readiest in accusation and in putting the worst construction on the actions of others, is generally one who unconsciously brings a public accusation against his own lower nature.

This has been well noticed by Matter, who writes as follows:

"There is nothing so impure," says Eusebius, "and one cannot imagine anything so criminal, but the sect of the Simonians goes far beyond it."[86]

The bolt of Eusebius is strong; it is even too strong; for one can imagine nothing that goes beyond the excess of criminality; and Eusebius, belonging to a community who were just escaping from punishments into which accusations no less grave had caused them to be dragged, should not perhaps have allowed himself to speak as he does. But man is made thus; he pursues when he ceases to be pursued.[87]

All societies that have secret rites and a public position, as was the case with all the early communities of Christians and Gnostics, have had like accusations brought against them. The communities of the Simonians and Christians may or may not have been impure, it is now impossible to p.r.o.nounce a positive opinion. The important point to notice is that the accusations being identical and the evidence or want of evidence the same, condemnation or acquittal must be meted out to both; and that if one is condemned and the other acquitted, the judgment will stand condemned as bia.s.sed, and therefore be set aside by those who prefer truth to prejudice.

So eager were the fathers to discredit Simon that they contradict themselves in the most flagrant fashion on many important points. On the one hand we hear that Samaria received the seed of the Word from the apostles and Simon in despair had to flee, on the other hand Justin, a native of Samaria, tells us, a century after this supposed event, that nearly all the Samaritans are Simonians. The accounts of Simon's death again are contradictory; if Simon perished so miserably at Rome, it is the reverse of probable that the Romans would have set up a statue in his honour. But, indeed, it is a somewhat thankless task to criticize such manifest inventions; we know the source of their inspiration, and we know the fertility of the religious imagination, especially in matters of controversy, and this is a sufficient sieve wherewith to sift them out of our heap.

I must now say a few words on Simonian literature of which the only geniune specimens we can in any way be certain are the quotations from the _Apophasis_ of Simon in the text of the _Philosophumena_.

That there was a body of Simonian scriptures is undoubtedly true, as may be seen from the pa.s.sages we have quoted from the _Recognitions_, Jerome, Pseudo-Dionysius and the Arabic Preface to the Nicaean Council, and for some time I was in hopes of being able to collect at least some scattered fragments of these works, but they have all unfortunately shared the fate of much else of value that the ignorance and fear of orthodoxy has committed to the flames. We know at any rate that there was a book called _The Four Quarters of the World_, just as the four orthodox gospels are dedicated to the signs of the four quarters in the old MSS., and that a collection of sentences or controversial replies of Simon were also held in repute by Simonians and were highly distasteful to their opponents. Matter[88] and Amelineau[89] speak of a book by the disciples of Simon called _De la Predication de S. Paul_, but neither from their references nor elsewhere can I find out any further information. In Migne's _Encyclopedie Theologique_,[90] also, a reference is given to M. Miller (_Catalogue des Ma.n.u.scripts Grecs de l'Escurial_, p. 112), who is said to mention a Greek MS. on the subject of Simon ("un ecrit en grec relatif a Simon"). But I cannot find this catalogue in the British Museum, nor can I discover any other mention of this MS. in any other author.

At last I thought that I had discovered something of real value in Grabe's _Spicilegium_, purporting to be gleanings of fragments from the heretics of the first three centuries A.D.,[91] but the date of the authority is too late to be of much value. Grabe refers to the unsatisfactory references I have already given and, to show the nature of these books, according to the opinion of the unknown author or authors of the _Apostolic Const.i.tutions_ (Grabe calls him the "collector," and for some reason best known to himself places him in the fourth century[92]), quotes the following pa.s.sage from their legendary pages.

"Such were the doings of these people with names of ill-omen slandering the creation and marriage, providence, child-bearing, the Law and the Prophets; setting down foreign names of Angels, as indeed they themselves say, but in reality, of Daemons, who answer back to them from below."

It is only when Grabe refers to the Simonian _Antirrhetikoi Logoi_, mentioned by the Pseudo-Dionysius, which he calls "vesani Simonis Refutatorii Sermones," that we get any new information.

A certain Syrian bishop, Moses Barcephas, writing in the tenth century,[93] professes to preserve some of these controversial retorts of Simon, which the pious Grabe--to keep this venom, as he calls it, apart from the orthodox refutation--has printed in italics. The following is the translation of these italicized pa.s.sages:

"G.o.d willed that Adam should not eat of that tree; but he did eat; he, therefore, did not remain as G.o.d willed him to remain: it results, therefore, that the maker of Adam was impotent."

"G.o.d willed that Adam should remain in Paradise; but he of his own disgraceful act fell from thence: therefore the G.o.d that made Adam was impotent, inasmuch as he was unable of his own will to keep him in Paradise."

"(For) he interdicted (he said) Adam from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, by tasting which he would have had power to judge between good and evil, and to avoid this, and follow after that."

"But (said he) had not that maker of Adam forbidden him to eat of that tree, he would in no way have undergone this judgment and this punishment; for hence is evil here, in that he (Adam) had done contrary to the bidding of G.o.d, for G.o.d had ordered him not to eat, and he had eaten."

"Through envy (said he) he forbade Adam to taste of the tree of life, so that, of course, he should not be immortal."

"For what reason on earth (said he) did G.o.d curse the serpent? For if (he cursed him) as the one who caused the harm, why did he not restrain him from so doing, that is, from seducing Adam? But if (he cursed him) as one who had brought some advantage, in that he was the cause of Adam's eating of that good tree, it needs must follow that he was distinctly unrighteous and envious; lastly, if, although from neither of these reasons, he still cursed him, he (the maker of Adam) should most certainly be accused of ignorance and folly."

Now although there seems no reason why the above contentions should not be considered as in substance the arguments employed by Simon against his antagonists of the dead-letter, yet the tenth century is too late to warrant verbal accuracy, unless there may have been some Syrian translation which escaped the hands of the destroyers. The above quoted specimen of traditionary Simonian logic, however, is interesting, and will, we believe, be found not altogether out of date in our own times.[94]

Finally, there is one further point that I have reserved for the end of this Part in order that my readers may constantly keep it in mind during the perusal of the Part which follows.

We must always remember that every single syllable we possess about Simon comes from the hands of bitter opponents, from men who had no mercy or toleration for the heretic. The heretic was accursed, condemned eternally by the very fact of his heresy; an emissary of Satan and the natural enemy of G.o.d. There was no hope for him, no mercy for him; he was irretrievably d.a.m.ned.[95] The Simon of our authorities has no friend; no one to say a word in his favour; he is hounded down the byways of "history" and the highways of tradition, and to crush him is to do G.o.d service. One solitary ray of light beams forth in the fragment of his work called _The Great Revelation_, one solitary ray, that will illumine the garbled accounts of his doctrine, and speak to the Theosophists of to-day in no uncertain tones that each may say:

Methinks there is much reason in his sayings. If thou consider rightly of the matter, [Simon] has had great wrong.[96]

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 78: M.E. Amelineau, "Essai sur le Gnosticisme egyptien,"

_Annales du Musee Guimet_, Tom. xvi. p. 28.]

[Footnote 79: Mosheim's _Inst.i.tutes of Ecclesiastical History_ (Trans.

etc., Murdock and Soames; ed. Stubbs 1863), Vol. I., p. 87, note, gives the following list of those who have maintained the theory of two Simons: Vitringa, _Observ. Sacrar._, v. 12, -- 9, p. 159, C.A. Heumann, _Acta Erudit. Lips._ for April, A.D. 1727, p. 179, and Is. de Beausobre, _Diss. sur l'Adamites_, pt. ii. subjoined to L'Enfants' _Histoire de la Guerre des Hussites_, i. 350, etc. Dr. Salmon also holds this theory.]

[Footnote 80: _Dict. Christ. Biog._, art. "Helena," Vol. II, p. 880.]

[Footnote 81: _Hist. Eccles._, ii. 13.]

[Footnote 82: _Quellenkritik des Epiphanios_.]

[Footnote 83: _Cf._ Dr. Salmon's art. "Hippolytus Roma.n.u.s," _Dict.

Christ. Biog._, iii. 93, 94.]

[Footnote 84: _Histoire Critique du Gnosticisme_, Tom. i. p. 197 (1st ed. 1828).]

[Footnote 85: _Les Bibles, et les Initiateurs Religieux de l'Humanite_, Louis Leblois, i. 144; from Uhlhorn, _Die Homilien und Recognitionen_, p. 224.]

[Footnote 86: _Hist. Eccles._, ii. 13.]

[Footnote 87: _Op. cit._, i. 213.]

[Footnote 88: _Op. cit._, ii. 217.]

[Footnote 89: _Op. cit._, 32.]