united it to his own, he would be called, in ancient times, an heretic; and the Fathers assert that he was the parent of all heretics. Mosheim could hardly have been ignorant, that this is precisely the way in which many of the Fathers explain their meaning. Thus Irenæus, though he says that all heresies were derived from Simone, and that all, who in any manner corrupt the truth, were disciples and successors of Simon Magus', yet states expressly, that Simon only pretended to believe in Christ, and that his followers held out the name of Jesus as an attraction, wishing by that means to conceal their real doctrines 5. Origen, in his work against Celsus, quotes that unbeliever as objecting to the Christians, that some among them made the God, who was Father of Jesus Christ, not to be the same with the God of the Jewsh. This we know to have been a Gnostic doctrine; and Origen replies, "that there may be some persons who call themselves Gnos"tics, as there may be Epicureans who call them"selves philosophers but neither can they be "really philosophers, who deny a Providence, nor "can they who introduce strange inventions, not agreeable to the doctrine of Jesus, be Christians: "there may be some who receive Jesus, and there I. 23. 2. p. 99. Pag. 106. This passage is quoted by Mosheim, as proving that "not one of the Gnostic "sects held Simon in the least "reverence:" but whoever consults the passage, will see that it by no means proves so much. Irenæus is only speak. ing of the name which these heretics assumed: but he is positive in asserting, that they "fore boast themselves to be Christians; but how "does this accusation affect the true believer?" He then adds, that among those heretical Christians Celsus particularised Simon Magus; and he replies, "But Celsus seems not to be aware that the follow"ers of Simon by no means acknowledge Jesus to "be the Son of God." Eusebius says expressly, that Simon Magus was looked upon as the first founder of every heresy; and then adds, that all those who embraced his opinions pretended that they were Christians. The words of Epiphanius are equally express, who says, "The first heresy after the "time of Christ is that of Simon Magus, which is "not properly and regularly classed with those "which bear the name of Christ." I have perhaps stated enough to shew that the Fathers knew well what they were asserting, when they called Simon Magus the father of all heresies. They knew that he was not a Christian, but they believed him to be the first who mixed Christianity with Gnosticism, and consequently the leader of all those heretics who professed to believe in Christ 38. Some persons have felt so great a difficulty in admitting this assertion of the Fathers, that they have resorted to what is a common refuge in dilemmas of this kind; and have imagined, contrary to all historical evidence, that there were two different persons of the name of Simon; one who is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, and another who was leader of the Gnostics. This notion has been so completely refuted by Mosheim in a special disser i Eccles. Hist. II. 13. p. 62. * Hær. XXI. 1. p. 55. In another place, he says that Si mon only assumed the name "of Christ." Anaceph. vol. II. p. 139. tation, that little more need be said upon the subject 39. Though Mosheim denied that this Simon was the parent of all heresies, yet he was well aware that the Fathers, who declared him to be so, intended the same Simon Magus who is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. There can indeed be no doubt upon the subject; and I shall only use one argument in support of the testimony of the Fathers. Justin Martyr, about the year 140, presented a Defence of Christianity to the emperor Antoninus Pius; in which he mentions as a well-known fact, that Simon, a native of Gittum', a village in Samaria, came to Rome in the reign of Claudius, was looked upon there as a god, and had a statue erected to him, with a Latin inscription, in the river Tiber, between the two bridges. Justin adds, that nearly all the Samaritans, and a few also in other nations, acknowledged and worshipped him as the supreme God". There is in this passage such a minute detail, such a confident appeal to the emperor's own knowledge of what the apologist was saying, that we can hardly suppose the story to be false, when not only the emperor, but every person in Rome, would have been able to detect it. I would observe also, that Justin Martyr was himself a native of Samaria: hence he was able to name the very place where Simon was born; and when he says in his second Defence, which was presented a few years later, "I have despised the impious and "false doctrine of Simon which is in my country",' " when we see the shame which he felt at the name of Christian being assumed by the followers of that impostor, we can never believe that he would have countenanced the story, if the truth of it had not been notorious; much less would he have given to his own country the disgrace of originating the evil. We may now proceed to the life of Simon Magus, as far as we can collect it from different writers. We have seen that he was a native of Gittum, a town in Samaria; and it is stated in a suspicious document, of ancient, though doubtful date, that he studied for some time at Alexandria. Concerning the time of his birth, and of his first rising into notice, little can now be known. The only contemporary document which mentions him, is the Acts of the Apostles; and we there read, that when Philip the deacon preached the gospel in Samaria after the death of Stephen, there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: to whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God. And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries. (viii. 9-11.) According to the calculation, which I followed in my last Lecture, the death of Stephen happened in the same year with the crucifixion of our Lord: and it appears from the passage now quoted, that Simon's celebrity had begun some time before. We are then told, that Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. (13.) I need not mention how he shortly fell away from the faith which he had embraced; and how St. Peter rebuked him for thinking that the gift of God might be purchased for money: (20.) but I would observe, that some of those persons who insist upon the fact that Simon was not a Christian, appear to have forgotten that he was actually baptized. For a time at least he believed in Jesus Christ; and part of this belief he appears always to have retained: i.e. he always believed that Jesus Christ was a Being more than human who came from God. If these events happened, as I have supposed, within a short time of our Lord's ascension, the Fathers had good reason to call Simon Magus the parent of all heresies: for he must then have been among the first persons, beyond the limits of Jerusalem, who embraced the gospel; and we might hope, that there was no one before him who perverted the faith which he had professed. St. Luke at least mentions no other; and though Dositheus has been named as the companion of Simon Magus, and the Dositheans are placed before the Simonians by some writers, yet it seems probable, if such a person existed at all, that Dositheus was leader of a Samaritan sect before or after the period of which we are speaking; and the time would hardly allow him to have embraced Christianity, and fallen away from it, before Simon Magus 4o. |