Sister Projects: Wikichristian | WikiMD
BelieversCafe is a large collection of christian articles with over 40,000 pages
Our sponsors:
52 So Iranaeus (I. xxiii. 2) says that "from this Simon of Samaria all kinds of heresies derive their origin."
55 Irenaeus (I. xxiii. 2): "Having purchased from Tyre, a city of Phoenicia, a certain harlot named Helena, he used to carry her about with him, declaring that this woman was the first conception of his mind, the mother of all, by whom in the beginning he conceived in his mind the creation of Angels and Archangels."
56 Cf. Epiphan. (Haeres. p. 55 B): "He said that he was the Son and had not really suffered, but only in appearance (dokh/sei)."
57 Irenaeus (I. xxiii. 1): "He taught that it was himself who appeared among the Jews as the Son, and descended in Samaria as the Father, but came to other nations as the Holy Spirit."
Cyril here departs from his authority by substituting Mount Sinai for Samaria, and thereby falls into error. Simon had first appeared in Samaria, being a native of Gitton: moreover in claiming to be the Father he meant to set himself far above the inferior Deity who had given the Law on Sinai, saying that he was "the highest of all Powers, that is the Father who is over all."
58 "Justin Martyr in his first Apology, addressed to Antoninus Pius, writes thus (c. 26): `There was one Simon a Samaritan, of the village called Gitton, who in the reign of Claudius Caesar, and in your royal city of Rome, did mighty feats of magic by the art of daemons working in him. He was considered a god, and as a god was honoured among you with a statue, which statue was set up in the river Tiber between the two bridges, and bears this inscription in Latin:
Simoni Deo Sancto;
which is,
To Simon the holy God.
"The substance of this story is repeated by Irenaeus (adv. Haer. I. xxiii. 1), and by Tertullian (Apol. c. 13), who reproaches the Romans for installing Simon Magus in their Pantheon, and giving him a statue and the title `Holy God. 0''
"In A.D. 1574, a stone, which had formed the base of a statue, was dug up on the site described by Justin, the Island in the Tiber, bearing an inscription - `Semoni Sanco Deo Fidio Sacrum, &c. Hence it has been supposed that Justin mistook a statue of the Sabine God, `Semo Sancus, 0' for one of Simon Magus. See the notes in Otto's Justin Martyr, and Stieren's Irenaeus.
"On the other hand Tillemont (Memories, t. ii. p. 482) maintains that Justin in an Apology addressed to the emperor and written in Rome itself cannot reasonably be supposed to have fallen into so manifest an error. Whichever view we take of Justin's accuracy concerning the inscription and the statue, there is nothing improbable in his statement that Simon Magus was at Rome in the reign of Claudius."(Extracted by permission from the Speaker's Commentary, Introduction to the Epistle to the Romans, p. 4.)
59 "Justin says not one word about St. Peter's alleged visit to Rome, and his encounter with Simon Magus." But "Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History (c. A.D. 325), quotes Justin Martyr's story about Simon Magus (E. H. ii. c. 13), and then, without referring to any authority, goes on to assert (c. 14) that `immediately in the same reign of Claudius divine Providence led Peter the great Apostle to Rome to encounter this great destroyer of life, 0' and that he thus brought the light of the Gospel from the East to the West 0' (ibidem).
Eusebius probably borrowed this story "from the strange fictions of the Clementine Recognitions and Homilies, and Apostolic Constitutions." See Recogn. III. 63-65; Hom. I. 15, III. 58; Apsot. Constit. VI. 7, 8, 9 . Cyril's account of Simon's death is taken from the same untrustworthy sources.
62 It is certain that S. Paul was not at Rome at this time. This story of Simon Magus and his `fiery car 0' is told, with variations, by Arnobius (adv. Gentes, II. 12), and in Apost. Constit VI. 9.
64 Cerinthus taught that the world was not made by the supreme God, but by a separate Power ignorant of Him. See Irenaeus, Haer. I. xxvi., Euseb. E. H. iii. 28, with the notes in this Series.
65 Menander is first mentioned by Justin M. (Apolog. I. cap. 26): "Meander, also a Samaritan, of the town Capparetaea, a disciple of Simon, and inspired by devils, we know to have deceived many while he was in Antioch by his magical art. he persuaded those who adhered to him that they should never die." Irenaeus (I. xxiii. 5) adds that Meander announced himself as the Saviour sent by the Invisibles, and taught that the world was created by Angels. See also Tertullian (de Animâ, cap. 50.)
66 Carpocrates, a Platonic philosopher, who taught at Alexandria (125 A.D. circ.), held that the world and all things in it were made by Angels far inferior to the unbegotten (unknown) Father (Iren. I. xxv. 1; Tertullian, Adv. Haer. cap. 3).
"Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God: but their opinions with respect to the Lord are like those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates."
68 On Marcion, see note 5, on Cat. iv. 4.
72 Marcion accepted only St. Luke's Gospel, and mutilated that (Tertullian, Adv. Marcion. iv. 2). He thus got rid of the testimony of the Apostles and eye-witnesses, Matthew and John, and represented the Law and the Gospel as contradictory revelations of two different Gods. For this Cyril calls him `a second inventor of mischief, 0' Simon Magus (§ 14) being the first.
73 Basilides was earlier than Maricon, being the founder of a Gnostic sect at Alexandria in the reign of Hadrian (A.D. 117-138). His doctrines are described by Irenaeus (I. xxvii. 3-7), and very fully by Hippolytus (Refut. omn. Haer. VII. 2-15). The charge of teaching licentiousness attaches rather to the later followers of Basilides than to himself or his son Isidorus (Clem. Alex. Stromat. III. cap. 1) and against which Agrippa Castor wrote a refutation. Origen (Hom. I. in Lucam.) says that Basilides wrote a Gospel bearing his own name. See Routh, Rell. Sacr. I. p. 85; V. p. 106: Westcott, History of Canon of N. T. iv. § 3.
74 "The doctrines of Valentinus are described fully by Iren§us (I. cap. i.) from whom S. Cyril takes this account. Valentinus, and Basilides, and Bardesanes, and Harmonious, and those of their company admit Christ's conception and birth of the Virgin, but say that God the Word received no addition from the Virgin, but made a sort of passage through her, as though a tube, and made use of a phantom in appearing to men." (Theodoret, Epist. 145.
78 Irenaeus, l. c., and Hippolytus, who gives an elaborate account of the doctrines of Valentinus (L. VI. capp. xvi. - xxxii.), both represent Sophia, "Wisdom," as giving birth not to Satan, but to a shapeless abortion, which was the origin of matter. According to Irenaeus (I. iv. 2), Achamoth, the enthymesis of Sophia, gave birth to the Demiurge, and "from her tears all that is of a liquid nature was formed."
In Tertullian's Treatise against the Valentinians chap. xxii., Achamoth is said as by Cyril to have given birth to Satan: but in chap. xxiii. Satan seems to be identified (or interchanged) with the Demiurge.
79 The account in Irenaeus (I. ii. 6) is rather different: "The whole Pleroma of the Aeons, with one design and desire, and with the concurrence of the Christ and the Holy Spirit, their Father also setting the seal of His approval on their conduct, brought together whatever each one had in himself of the greatest beauty and preciousness; and uniting all these contributions so as skilfully to blend the whole, they produced, to the honour and glory of Bythus, a being of most perfect beauty, the very star of the Pleroma, and its perfect fruit, namely Jesus."
Tertullian, Against the Valentinians, chap. 12, gives a sarcastic description of this strange doctrine, deriving his facts (chap. 5) from Justin, Miltiades, "Irenaeus, that very exact inquirer into all doctrines," and Proculus.
80 This statement does not agree with Irenaeus (I. vii. 1), who says that the Valentinians represented the Saviour, that is Jesus, as becoming the bridegroom of Achamoth or Sophia.
81 John 10, 11: "Neither bid him God speed" (A. V..): "give him no greeting" (R. V.)
83 Eusebius in his brief notice of the Manichean heresy (Hist. Eccles. vii. 31) plays, like S. Cyril, upon the name Manes as well suited to a madman.
84 Marcus Aurelius Probus, Emperor A.D. 276-282, from being an obsucre Illyrian soldier came to be universally esteemed the best and noblest of the Roman Emperors.
85 Routh (R. S. V. p. 12) comes to the conclusion that the famous disputation between Manes and Archelaus took place between July and December, A.D. 277. Accordingly these Lectures, being "full 70 years" later, could not have been delivered before the Spring of A.D. 348.
86 Leo the Great (Serm. xv. cap. 4) speaks of the madness of the later Manichees as including all errors and impieties: "all profanity of Paganism, all blindness of the carnal Jews, the illicit secrets of the magic art, the sacrilege and blasphemy of all heresies, flowed together in that sect as into a sort of cess-pool of all filth." Leo summoned those whom they called the "elect." both men and women, before an assembly of Bishops and Presbyters, and obtained from these witnesses a full account of the execrable practices of the sect, in which, as he declares, "their law is lying, their religion the devil, their sacrifice obscenity."
90 Cyril takes his account of Manes from the "Acta Archelai et Manetis Disputationis," of which Routh has edited the Latin translation together with the Fragments of the Greek preserved by Cyril in this Lecture and by Epiphanius. There is an English translation of the whole in Clark's "Ante-Nicene Christian Library."
91 The Saracens are mentioned by both Pliny and Ptolemy. See Dict. of Greek and Roman Geography.
92 There is no mention of Aristotle in the Acta Archelai, but Scythianus is stated (cap. li.) to have founded the sect in the time of the Apostles, and to have derived his duality of Gods from Pythagoras, and to have learned the wisdom of the Egyptians.
93 These four books are stated by Archelaus (Acta, cap. lii.), to have been written for Manes by his disciple Terebinthus.
94 In allusion to this name the history of the Disputation is called (Acta, cap. I.) "The true Treasure."
95 The true reading of this sentence, proairou/menon to\n skuqiano/n, instead of to\n pro/eirhme/non Sk., has been restored by Cleopas from the Ms. in the Archiepiscopal library at Jerusalem. This reading agrees with the statement in Acta Archel. cap. li.: "Scythianus thought of making an excursion into Judaea, with the purpose of meeting all those who had a reputation there as teachers; but it came to pass that he suddenly departed this life, without having been able to make any progress."
96 This statement agrees with the reading of the Vatican Ms. of the Acta Archelai, "omnibus quaecunque ejus fuerunt congregratis."
97 In the Acta there is no question of Palestine, but only that he "set out for Babylonia, a province which is now held by the Persians."
98 Clem. Alex. (Strom. i. 15): "Some also of the Indians obey the precepts of Boutta, and honour him as a god for his extraordinary sanctity."
99 Cf. Acta Arch. cap. lii.: "A certain Parcus, however, a prophet, and Labdacus, son of Mithras, charged him with falsehood." On the name Parcus and Labdacus, see Dict. Chr. Biogr., "Barcabbas," and on the Magian worship of the Sun-god Mithras, see Rawlinson (Herodot. Vol. I. p. 426).
101 Cf. Acta Arch. cap. liii."A boy about seven years old, named Corbicius."
102 See a different account in Dict. Chr. Biogr., "Manes."
107 The account of the discussion in this and the two following chapters is not now found in the Latin Version of the "Disputation," but is regarded by Dr. Routh as having been derived by Cyril from some different copies of the Greek. The last paragraph of § 29, "These mysteries, &c.," is evidently a caution addressed to the hearers by Cyril himself (Routh, Rell. Sac. V. 199).
115 2 Cor. iv. 4, noh/mata, "thoughts."
118 Matt. xiii. 13. Both A. V. and R. V. follow the better reading: "because seeing they see not &c."
120 Ib. xxv. 29: Luke viii. 18.
121 Instead of the reading of the Benedictine and earlier editions, ei' de\ dei= kai\ w!j tinej e'chgou=ntai tou=to ei'pei=n, the Mss. Roe and Casaubon combine dei kai wj into the one word dikaiwj, which is probably the right reading. Something, however, is still wanted to complete the construction, and Petrus Siculus (circ A.D. 870) who quotes the passage in his History of the Manichees, boldly conjectures e!sti kai\ ou!twj ei'pei=n. A simpler emendation would be - ei\ de\ dikai/wj tine\j e'chgou=ntai, dei= touto ei'pei=n - which both completes the construction and explains the reading dei! kai\ w 9j.
125 See the note at the end of Procatechesis.
126 Disput. § 53. Compare the account of Manes in Socrates Eccles. Hist. I. 22, in this series.
127 The Gospel of Thomas, an account of the Childhood of Jesus, is extant in three forms, two in Greek and one in Latin: these are all translated in Clark's Ante-Nicene Library. The work is wrongly attributed by Cyril to a disciple of Manes, being mentioned long before Hippolytus (Refutation of all Heresies, V. 2) and by Origen (Hom. I. in Lucam): "There is extant also the Gospel according to Thomas."
128 In the Disputation § 9, Turbo describes these transformations: "Reapers must be transformed into hay, or beans, or barley, or corn, or vegetables, that they may be reaped and cut. Again if any one eats bread, he must become bread, and be eaten. If one kills a chicken, he will be a chicken himself. If one kills a mouse, he also will be a mouse."
129 See Turbo's confession, Disput. § 9: "And when they are going to eat bread, they first pray, speaking thus to the bread: `I neither reaped thee, nor ground thee, nor kneaded thee, nor cast thee into the oven: but another did these things and brought thee to me, and I am not to blame for eating thee. 0' And when he has said this to himself, he says to the Catechumen, `'I have prayed for thee, 0' and so he goes away."
130 On the rites of Baptism and Eucharist employed by the Manichees, see Dict. Chr. Biogr., Manichean
131 The original runs: Ou' tolmw= ei'pei=n, ti/ni e'mba/ptontej th\n i'sxa/da dido/asi toi=j a'qli/oij. dia\ sussh/mwn de\ mo/non dhlou/aqw. a!ndrej ga\r ta\ e'n toi=j e'nupniasmoi=j e'nqumei/sqwsin, kai\ gunai=kej ta\ e'n afe/droij. Miai/nomen a'lhquj to\ sto/ma k. t. l.
132 O me\n ga\r porneu/saj, pro\j mi/an w!ran d e'piqumi/an telei= th\n pra=cin0 kataginw/skwn de\ th!j pra/cewj w 9j mianqei\j oi\de loutrou= e'pideo/menoj, kai\ ginw/skei th=j pra\cewj to\ musaro/n. 9O de\ Manixai=oj qusiasthri/on me/son, ou\ nomi/zei, ti/qhsi tau=ta, kai\ miai/nei kai\ to\ sto/ma kai\ th\n glw=ttan. para\ toiou/ton sto/matoj, a!nqrwpe k. t. l.