1 trine of the perfonification of the logos, which was borrowed from Platonism; and yet in the compafs of his work there is an account of every other system that made any confiderable figure in thofe times. The author himself appears to have been well acquainted with philosophy, and has evidently borrowed from it a variety of opinions, which are fufficiently abfurd. It may, therefore, be prefumed, that this writer, who was a man of learning and ability, well acquainted with the different systems that prevailed in his time, and with the arguments by which they were fupported, had never heard of any fuch doctrine; and that no questions relating to religion were much agitated in his time by chriftians, except against the heathens on the one hand, and the Gnostics on the other. Of all thefe a very full detail is given in this work, in which speakers are introduced on both fides, who exhibit in the best light the principles of their respective systems. It is poffible that this writer might be mistaken in his account of the opinions of perfons who lived about a century before his time, and it is evident he has afcribed to Peter feveral opinions which he could not have entertained; but he would naturally (fince he must have wished to gain credit to his theological romance, for fuch his work properly is) endeavour to give to every perfonage introduced into it fuch opinions and arguments as he thought would pass for theirs. Since, however, this is the only account that we have of the tenets of those oriental philofophers fo near to the time in which their doctrines were most in vogue, I shall give a separate view of them as they are exhibited in this work; and it will be feen, that the principles here ascribed to Simon Magus, were in general the very fame with those which were afterwards entertained by the chriftian Gnoftics, though Simon is not here reprefented as a chriftian, but an open oppofer of christianity. Beaufobre fays that this work is a well written romance, compofed by a chriftian philofopher who wished to publish his theology under the names of Peter and Clement*. * Histoire de Manicheisme, vol. 1. p. 461. 66 Cotelerius, the editor, fays, that "though "it abounds with trifles and errors, which "had their source in a half christian philofophy and herefy, especially that of "the Ebionites, it may be read with advantage, both on account of the elegance "of the ftile, and the various learning that "it contains, and likewife for the better "understanding the doctrine of the firft "heretics*." It was an opinion very prevalent among christians, that "Simon Magus was the "father of all herefy," and it is probable that the opinions which he maintained, being adopted by chriftians, were the true fource of those herefies which went under the general name of Gnofticism. Thus much may be learned from the work before us, in which Peter is represented as faying, "There will be, as the Lord faid, * Et vero quæ damus Clementina, licet nugis, licet erroribus fcatent, a femichriftiana philofophia, et hærefi, præ cipue Ebionitica, profectis, non fine fructu tamen legentur, tum propter elegantiam fermonis, tum multiplicis doc. trinæ caufa, tum denique ad melius cognofcenda primarum Hærefion dogmata. Preface. "falfe false apoftles, falfe prophets, herefies, pre"tenfions to power, which, as I conjec ture, have their origin from Simon, who blafphemes God, and who will concur "with him in speaking these things against "God*, This Simon is reprefented as having fupplanted one Dofitheus, who preceded him. as a teacher of the fame doctrinest. The fucceffor of Simon was Menander, whofe difciple was Saturninus of Antioch, and he was followed by Bafilides of Alexandria‡. These were the first chriftian Gnoftics. The age of Simon Magus is fixed by the history of the book of Acts, in which mention is made of his interview with Peter. The fevere reproof given him by Peter, might be supposed to have filenced him; but he is reprefented as being inde Εσονται γαρ, ως ο κύριος είπεν, ψευδαποςολοι, ψευδείς προφήται, αιρεσεις, φιλαρχίας: αι τινες, ως τοχαζομαι, απο το τον θεον βλασφη μενος Σιμωνος την αρχήν λαβεσαι, εις τα αύλα τω Σιμώνι καλα τε Des Reyel owepynosow. Hom. 16. fect. 21. p. 729. + Hom. 2. fect. 24. p. 627. + Eufeb. Hift. lib. 4: cap. 7. p. 147. I 3 fatigable fatigable in teaching his opinions afterwards. Theodoret fpeaks of him as fowing his heretical thorns when Paul was writing his fecond epistle to Timothy *. The great principles of the oriental philofophy, as far as they affected christianity were thefe, viz. That matter is the fource of all evil, that the fupreme being was not the maker of the world, that men had fouls separate from their bodies, and that these fouls had pre-exifted. And it must be owned that the reafoning by which the authors of this philofophy had been led to adopt these principles were very fpecious. It was a fundamental maxim with the oriental philofophers, as it also was with Plato, who borrowed from them, that the fupreme being is perfectly good, and therefore that he could not be the author of any thing evil. In this work Simon is reprefented as faying, "If God be the author "only of what is good, we must conclude "either that evil has fome other origin, or * Σίμων ήρξατο κατ' εκείνον τον καιρον τας αιρείικας κατασπείρεις axadas. In 2 Tim. ii. 8. Opera, vol. 3. p. 497. "that 1 |