Everybody in Christendom has heard of Simon, the magician, and howPeter, the apostle, rebuked him, as told in the narrative of the Actsof the Apostles. Many also have heard the legend of how at Romethiswicked sorcerer endeavoured to fly by aid of the demons, and how Petercaused him to fall headlong and thus miserably perish. And so mostthinkthat there is an end of the matter, and either cast their mite of pityor contempt at the memory of Simon, or laugh at the whole matter as theinvention of superstition or the imagination of religious fanaticism,according as their respective beliefs may be in orthodoxy ormaterialism. This for the general. Students of theology and churchhistory, on the other hand, have had a more difficult task set them incomparing and arranging the materials they have at their disposal, asfound in the patristic writings and legendary records; and varioustheories have been put forward, not the least astonishing being thesupposition that Simon was an alias for Paul, and that the Simon andPeter in the accounts of the fathers and in the narrative of thelegendswere simply concrete symbols to represent the two sides of the Paulineand Petrine controversies.
The first reason why I have ventured on this present enquiry is thatSimon Magus is invariably mentioned by the heresiologists as thefounderof the first heresy of the commonly-accepted Christian era, and isbelieved by them to have been the originator of those systems ofreligio-philosophy and theosophy which are now somewhat inaccuratelyclassed together under the heading of Gnosticism. And though thisassumption of the patristic heresiologists is entirely incorrect, asmaybe proved from their own works, it is nevertheless true thatSimonianismis the first system that, as far as our present records go, came intoconflict with what has been regarded as the orthodox stream ofChristianity. A second reason is that I believe that Simon has beengrossly misrepresented, and entirely misunderstood, by his orthodoxopponents, whoever they were, in the first place, and also, in thesecond place, by those who have ignorantly and without enquiry copiedfrom them. But my chief reason is that the present revival oftheosophical enquiry throws a flood of light on Simon's teachings,whenever we can get anything approaching a first-hand statement ofthem,and shows that it was identical in its fundamentals with the EsotericPhilosophy of all the great religions of the world.
In this enquiry, I shall have to be slightly wearisome to some of myreaders, for instead of giving a selection or even a paraphraze of thenotices on Simon which we have from authenticated patristic sources, Ishall furnish verbatim translations, and present a digest only of theunauthenticated legends. The growth of the Simonian legend must unfolditself before the reader in its native form as it comes from the pensofthose who have constructed it. Repetitions will, therefore, beunavoidable in the marshalling of authorities, but they will be showntobe not without interest in the subsequent treatment of the subject, andat any rate we shall at least be on the sure ground of having before usall that has been said on the matter by the Church fathers. Havingcitedthese authorities, I shall attempt to submit them to a criticalexamination, and so eliminate all accretions, hearsay and controversialopinions, and thus sift out what reliable residue is possible. Finally,my task will be to show that Simon taught a system of Theosophy, whichinstead of deserving our conde