son of Jacob and Leah, was born A. M. 2247, Genesis xxix, 33;
xxxiv, 25. Jacob, on his death bed, showed his indignation against
Simeon and Levi for their cruelty to the Shechemites, Gen. xlix, 5: “I
will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel.” And in effect
these two tribes were scattered in Israel. As to Levi, he never had any
fixed lot or portion; and Simeon received only a canton that was
dismembered from the tribe of Judah, Joshua xix, 1, &c, and some other
lands they went to conquer in the mountains of Seir, and the desert of
Gedor, 1 Chronicles iv, 27, 39, 42.
2. SIMEON, a holy man, who was at Jerusalem, full of the Holy Ghost, and
expecting the redemption of Israel, Luke ii, 25, 26, &c. The Holy Ghost
had assured him, that he should not die before he had seen the Christ of
the Lord; he therefore came into the temple, prompted by inspiration,
just at the time when Joseph and Mary presented Jesus Christ there, in
obedience to the law. Simeon took the child into his arms, gave thanks
to God, and then blessed Joseph and Mary. It is believed, with good
reason, that he died soon after he had given his testimony to Jesus
Christ. Some have conjectured, that Simeon, who received Jesus Christ
into his arms, was the same as Simeon the Just, the son of Hillel, and
master of Gamaliel, whose disciple St. Paul was. See SANHEDRIM.
SIMON MACCABÆUS, surnamed Thossi, son of Mattathias, and brother of
Judas and Jonathan. He was chief prince and pontiff of the Jews from A.
M. 3860 to 3869, and was succeeded by John Hyrcanus. For the particulars
of his life and transactions, see 1 Mac. ii, 65; v, 17; x, 74–82; xii,
33, &c; xiii, 1, &c; xiv, 4, &c; xv, 1, &c.
2. SIMON, the Canaanite, an Apostle of Jesus Christ. It is doubtful
whether the name of Canaanite was derived to him from the city Cana in
Galilee, or whether it should not be taken according to its
signification in the Hebrew, by deriving it from the root _kana_, “to be
zealous,” and this is the opinion of some learned men. See Luke vi, 15;
Acts i, 13, where he is surnamed Zelotes; see also Matt. x, 4; Mark iii,
18.
3. SIMON, brother of our Lord, Matt. xiii, 55; Mark vi, 3; that is to
say, his cousin-german, being son of Mary, sister to the holy virgin. He
is thought to be the same with Simeon, bishop of Jerusalem, and son of
Cleopas.
4. SIMON MAGUS. Of this heretic, or rather father of heresy, Dr. Burton
gives the following account:--Justin Martyr, about A. D. 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.
Simon Magus 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,” Acts viii, 9–11. According
to my calculation, 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,” Acts viii, 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, Acts viii,
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; that is, 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.
From the detailed account which we have of Simon in the Acts of the
Apostles, I should be inclined to infer these two things: 1. That St.
Luke knew no earlier instance of apostasy from the Gospel; and he
mentions this because it was the first: and 2. That when St. Luke wrote
the Acts of the Apostles the heresy of Simon was widely spread; and
therefore he tells his readers how it had begun. Concerning the
remainder of Simon’s life we know little, and in that little it is
difficult to separate truth from fiction. I should be inclined, for the
reasons given above, to believe the account of Justin Martyr, who says
that Simon Magus went to Rome in the reign of Claudius, and attracted
numerous followers. Eusebius quotes this passage of Justin Martyr; but
he adds, upon some other authority, which he does not name, that St.
Peter came to Rome at the same time; and that, in consequence of his
preaching, the popularity of the impostor was entirely destroyed. This
would be a most interesting and important fact, if we were certain of
its being true; but Eusebius contradicts himself in his account of Simon
Magus going to Rome; and later writers have so embellished the story of
this meeting, and made the death of Simon so astonishingly miraculous,
that criticism is at a loss to know what to believe. The account which
we have of Simon’s death is, in a few words, as follows: St. Peter and
St. Paul being both at Rome, Simon Magus gave out that he was Christ;
and, in proof of his assertion, he undertook to raise himself aloft into
the air. The attempt at first appeared as if it would succeed; but the
two Apostles addressing themselves in prayer to God, the impostor fell
to the ground, and his death ensued shortly after. It is difficult to
give this marvellous narration, without forgetting that we are treating
of a grave and sacred subject; and the question for us to consider is,
whether we are to look upon the whole as a fiction, or whether, as is
most probable, it contains a basis and groundwork of truth. I must
observe, in the first place, that Arnobius, who did not write till the
fourth century, is the first person who says anything of Simon’s death
at all approaching to this story; nor does he by any means give it all
the particulars which later writers have supplied. It will be observed,
also, that Eusebius, who wrote after Arnobius, does not say any thing of
Simon’s extraordinary end; but merely states that his credit and
influence were extinguished, as soon as St. Peter began to preach in
Rome. It is probable, therefore, that no Greek writer before the time of
Eusebius had mentioned this story; but, on the other hand, there is such
a host of evidence, that the death of Simon Magus was in some way or
other connected with the presence of St. Peter and St. Paul at Rome,
that we might be carrying our skepticism too far if we rejected it.
With respect to the doctrines of Simon Magus, we know for certain that
Christ held a conspicuous place in the philosophy which he taught; but
to define with accuracy the various points of this philosophy, is a
difficult, if not impossible, task. The fathers perhaps may be suspected
of laying too many impieties to the charge of this heretic; and some of
their accounts cannot be reconciled with each other. Still, however, we
may extract from their writings an outline of the truth; and in this
instance, as before, I would attach particular weight to the authority
of Justin Martyr. That writer says that nearly all the inhabitants of
Samaria, and a few persons in other countries, acknowledged and
worshipped Simon Magus as the first or supreme God: and in another place
he says that they styled him God, above all dominion and authority and
power. Later writers have increased the blasphemy of this doctrine, and
said that Simon declared himself to the Samaritans as the Father, to the
Jews as the Son, and to the rest of the world as the Holy Ghost. But I
cannot bring myself to believe that he ever advanced so far in
wickedness or absurdity. The true state of the case may perhaps be
collected from the words of St. Luke, who tells us that Simon gave
himself out to be “some great one,” and that the people said of him,
“This man is the great power of God,” Acts viii, 10. Such is the title
which he bore before he had heard of Christ; and there is no reason to
think that he afterward raised his pretensions, and identified himself
with God. He gave himself out as “the great power of God,” that is, a
person in whom divine power resided: and, after he had heard the
Apostles, he seems to have so far enlarged his doctrine, as to have
said, that the God whose minister he was, and who had always been
worshipped in Samaria, had revealed himself to the Jews by his Son, and
to the rest of the world by the Holy Ghost. There is reason to believe
that he declared himself to be the Christ who appeared to the Jews; or
rather, he said that the same spirit which descended upon Jesus had
descended afterward upon himself; for he did not believe that Jesus had
a real body, but he taught that he was only a phantom. To this he added,
that the Holy Ghost, by which God was revealed to the Gentiles, resided
in himself: and this I take to be the real origin of the story, that he
was the God who revealed himself as the Father to the Samaritans, as the
Son to the Jews, and as the Holy Ghost to the rest of the world.
Another charge, which is equally difficult to believe, relates to a
female companion, whom he is said to have declared to be the first idea,
or conception, which he, as God, put forth from his mind. By another
mental process, in which this first idea was a partner, he produced the
angels, and they created the world. All this was highly mystical, and
writers have had recourse to different allegories, by which the
absurdity may be explained. That Simon never identified a real living
person with an idea emanating from the mind of God, may, I think, be
assumed as certain. But we see, in this story, evident traces of the
Gnostic doctrines. Valentinus, in the second century, made the first
cause, or Bythus, act upon Σιγὴ, or Ἐννοία, that is, upon his own mind,
and produce the first pair of æons. This then was the doctrine of Simon:
the supreme God, by a mental process, produced different orders of
angels, and they created the world. It was this same God, whose first or
principal power resided in Simon Magus. But when later writers had said
that he actually proclaimed himself as God, it followed that it was he,
who, by an operation of his own mind, produced the angels. If I have
argued rightly, I have freed the doctrine of Simon Magus from some of
its impieties; but there is still much which is absurd, and much which
is impious; for he believed that the world was created, not by the
supreme God, but by inferior beings: he taught also, that Christ was one
of those successive generations of æons which were derived from God; not
the æon which created the world; but he was sent from God to rescue
mankind from the tyranny of the demiurgus, or creative æon. Simon was
also inventor of the strange notion, that the Jesus who was said to be
born and crucified had not a material body, but was only a phantom. His
other doctrines were, that the writers of the Old Testament were not
inspired by the supreme God, the Fountain of good, but by those inferior
beings who created the world, and who were the authors of evil. He
denied a general resurrection; and the lives of himself and his
followers are said to have been a continued course of impure and vicious
conduct.
Such was the doctrine and the practice of Simon Magus, from whom all the
pseudo-Christian or Gnostic heresies were said to be derived. Simon
himself seems to have been one of those Jews who, as we learn from the
Acts of the Apostles, travelled about the country, exorcising evil
spirits. But he was also a man of speculative mind; and, having studied
the doctrines of Plato, he entered into the questions which were then so
commonly agitated, concerning the eternity of matter, and the origin of
evil. Hence we find him embracing the opinion, that the world was
created by angels, who were themselves produced from God. This was a
corrupted Platonism. Plato imagined that the ideas which were in the
mind of the Deity created intellectual beings: Simon taught that the
supreme God by an operation of his own mind produced the angels. The
first intelligences of Plato were employed by God to create the world:
Simon also taught that the angels, or æons, created the world; but in
one respect the Gnostics had totally changed the philosophy of Plato;
for they taught that the angel, or angels, who created the world, acted
contrary to the wishes of the supreme God.
xxxiv, 25. Jacob, on his death bed, showed his indignation against
Simeon and Levi for their cruelty to the Shechemites, Gen. xlix, 5: “I
will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel.” And in effect
these two tribes were scattered in Israel. As to Levi, he never had any
fixed lot or portion; and Simeon received only a canton that was
dismembered from the tribe of Judah, Joshua xix, 1, &c, and some other
lands they went to conquer in the mountains of Seir, and the desert of
Gedor, 1 Chronicles iv, 27, 39, 42.
2. SIMEON, a holy man, who was at Jerusalem, full of the Holy Ghost, and
expecting the redemption of Israel, Luke ii, 25, 26, &c. The Holy Ghost
had assured him, that he should not die before he had seen the Christ of
the Lord; he therefore came into the temple, prompted by inspiration,
just at the time when Joseph and Mary presented Jesus Christ there, in
obedience to the law. Simeon took the child into his arms, gave thanks
to God, and then blessed Joseph and Mary. It is believed, with good
reason, that he died soon after he had given his testimony to Jesus
Christ. Some have conjectured, that Simeon, who received Jesus Christ
into his arms, was the same as Simeon the Just, the son of Hillel, and
master of Gamaliel, whose disciple St. Paul was. See SANHEDRIM.
SIMON MACCABÆUS, surnamed Thossi, son of Mattathias, and brother of
Judas and Jonathan. He was chief prince and pontiff of the Jews from A.
M. 3860 to 3869, and was succeeded by John Hyrcanus. For the particulars
of his life and transactions, see 1 Mac. ii, 65; v, 17; x, 74–82; xii,
33, &c; xiii, 1, &c; xiv, 4, &c; xv, 1, &c.
2. SIMON, the Canaanite, an Apostle of Jesus Christ. It is doubtful
whether the name of Canaanite was derived to him from the city Cana in
Galilee, or whether it should not be taken according to its
signification in the Hebrew, by deriving it from the root _kana_, “to be
zealous,” and this is the opinion of some learned men. See Luke vi, 15;
Acts i, 13, where he is surnamed Zelotes; see also Matt. x, 4; Mark iii,
18.
3. SIMON, brother of our Lord, Matt. xiii, 55; Mark vi, 3; that is to
say, his cousin-german, being son of Mary, sister to the holy virgin. He
is thought to be the same with Simeon, bishop of Jerusalem, and son of
Cleopas.
4. SIMON MAGUS. Of this heretic, or rather father of heresy, Dr. Burton
gives the following account:--Justin Martyr, about A. D. 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.
Simon Magus 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,” Acts viii, 9–11. According
to my calculation, 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,” Acts viii, 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, Acts viii,
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; that is, 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.
From the detailed account which we have of Simon in the Acts of the
Apostles, I should be inclined to infer these two things: 1. That St.
Luke knew no earlier instance of apostasy from the Gospel; and he
mentions this because it was the first: and 2. That when St. Luke wrote
the Acts of the Apostles the heresy of Simon was widely spread; and
therefore he tells his readers how it had begun. Concerning the
remainder of Simon’s life we know little, and in that little it is
difficult to separate truth from fiction. I should be inclined, for the
reasons given above, to believe the account of Justin Martyr, who says
that Simon Magus went to Rome in the reign of Claudius, and attracted
numerous followers. Eusebius quotes this passage of Justin Martyr; but
he adds, upon some other authority, which he does not name, that St.
Peter came to Rome at the same time; and that, in consequence of his
preaching, the popularity of the impostor was entirely destroyed. This
would be a most interesting and important fact, if we were certain of
its being true; but Eusebius contradicts himself in his account of Simon
Magus going to Rome; and later writers have so embellished the story of
this meeting, and made the death of Simon so astonishingly miraculous,
that criticism is at a loss to know what to believe. The account which
we have of Simon’s death is, in a few words, as follows: St. Peter and
St. Paul being both at Rome, Simon Magus gave out that he was Christ;
and, in proof of his assertion, he undertook to raise himself aloft into
the air. The attempt at first appeared as if it would succeed; but the
two Apostles addressing themselves in prayer to God, the impostor fell
to the ground, and his death ensued shortly after. It is difficult to
give this marvellous narration, without forgetting that we are treating
of a grave and sacred subject; and the question for us to consider is,
whether we are to look upon the whole as a fiction, or whether, as is
most probable, it contains a basis and groundwork of truth. I must
observe, in the first place, that Arnobius, who did not write till the
fourth century, is the first person who says anything of Simon’s death
at all approaching to this story; nor does he by any means give it all
the particulars which later writers have supplied. It will be observed,
also, that Eusebius, who wrote after Arnobius, does not say any thing of
Simon’s extraordinary end; but merely states that his credit and
influence were extinguished, as soon as St. Peter began to preach in
Rome. It is probable, therefore, that no Greek writer before the time of
Eusebius had mentioned this story; but, on the other hand, there is such
a host of evidence, that the death of Simon Magus was in some way or
other connected with the presence of St. Peter and St. Paul at Rome,
that we might be carrying our skepticism too far if we rejected it.
With respect to the doctrines of Simon Magus, we know for certain that
Christ held a conspicuous place in the philosophy which he taught; but
to define with accuracy the various points of this philosophy, is a
difficult, if not impossible, task. The fathers perhaps may be suspected
of laying too many impieties to the charge of this heretic; and some of
their accounts cannot be reconciled with each other. Still, however, we
may extract from their writings an outline of the truth; and in this
instance, as before, I would attach particular weight to the authority
of Justin Martyr. That writer says that nearly all the inhabitants of
Samaria, and a few persons in other countries, acknowledged and
worshipped Simon Magus as the first or supreme God: and in another place
he says that they styled him God, above all dominion and authority and
power. Later writers have increased the blasphemy of this doctrine, and
said that Simon declared himself to the Samaritans as the Father, to the
Jews as the Son, and to the rest of the world as the Holy Ghost. But I
cannot bring myself to believe that he ever advanced so far in
wickedness or absurdity. The true state of the case may perhaps be
collected from the words of St. Luke, who tells us that Simon gave
himself out to be “some great one,” and that the people said of him,
“This man is the great power of God,” Acts viii, 10. Such is the title
which he bore before he had heard of Christ; and there is no reason to
think that he afterward raised his pretensions, and identified himself
with God. He gave himself out as “the great power of God,” that is, a
person in whom divine power resided: and, after he had heard the
Apostles, he seems to have so far enlarged his doctrine, as to have
said, that the God whose minister he was, and who had always been
worshipped in Samaria, had revealed himself to the Jews by his Son, and
to the rest of the world by the Holy Ghost. There is reason to believe
that he declared himself to be the Christ who appeared to the Jews; or
rather, he said that the same spirit which descended upon Jesus had
descended afterward upon himself; for he did not believe that Jesus had
a real body, but he taught that he was only a phantom. To this he added,
that the Holy Ghost, by which God was revealed to the Gentiles, resided
in himself: and this I take to be the real origin of the story, that he
was the God who revealed himself as the Father to the Samaritans, as the
Son to the Jews, and as the Holy Ghost to the rest of the world.
Another charge, which is equally difficult to believe, relates to a
female companion, whom he is said to have declared to be the first idea,
or conception, which he, as God, put forth from his mind. By another
mental process, in which this first idea was a partner, he produced the
angels, and they created the world. All this was highly mystical, and
writers have had recourse to different allegories, by which the
absurdity may be explained. That Simon never identified a real living
person with an idea emanating from the mind of God, may, I think, be
assumed as certain. But we see, in this story, evident traces of the
Gnostic doctrines. Valentinus, in the second century, made the first
cause, or Bythus, act upon Σιγὴ, or Ἐννοία, that is, upon his own mind,
and produce the first pair of æons. This then was the doctrine of Simon:
the supreme God, by a mental process, produced different orders of
angels, and they created the world. It was this same God, whose first or
principal power resided in Simon Magus. But when later writers had said
that he actually proclaimed himself as God, it followed that it was he,
who, by an operation of his own mind, produced the angels. If I have
argued rightly, I have freed the doctrine of Simon Magus from some of
its impieties; but there is still much which is absurd, and much which
is impious; for he believed that the world was created, not by the
supreme God, but by inferior beings: he taught also, that Christ was one
of those successive generations of æons which were derived from God; not
the æon which created the world; but he was sent from God to rescue
mankind from the tyranny of the demiurgus, or creative æon. Simon was
also inventor of the strange notion, that the Jesus who was said to be
born and crucified had not a material body, but was only a phantom. His
other doctrines were, that the writers of the Old Testament were not
inspired by the supreme God, the Fountain of good, but by those inferior
beings who created the world, and who were the authors of evil. He
denied a general resurrection; and the lives of himself and his
followers are said to have been a continued course of impure and vicious
conduct.
Such was the doctrine and the practice of Simon Magus, from whom all the
pseudo-Christian or Gnostic heresies were said to be derived. Simon
himself seems to have been one of those Jews who, as we learn from the
Acts of the Apostles, travelled about the country, exorcising evil
spirits. But he was also a man of speculative mind; and, having studied
the doctrines of Plato, he entered into the questions which were then so
commonly agitated, concerning the eternity of matter, and the origin of
evil. Hence we find him embracing the opinion, that the world was
created by angels, who were themselves produced from God. This was a
corrupted Platonism. Plato imagined that the ideas which were in the
mind of the Deity created intellectual beings: Simon taught that the
supreme God by an operation of his own mind produced the angels. The
first intelligences of Plato were employed by God to create the world:
Simon also taught that the angels, or æons, created the world; but in
one respect the Gnostics had totally changed the philosophy of Plato;
for they taught that the angel, or angels, who created the world, acted
contrary to the wishes of the supreme God.