Chapter IV.—Simon’s Forced Interpretation of Scripture; Plagiarizes from Heraclitus and Aristotle; Simon’s System of Sensible and Intelligible Existences.

In this way we must think concerning Simon the magician, so that we may compare him unto the Libyan, far sooner than unto Him who, though made man,595    The text here is corrupt. The above is Miller’s emendation.  Cruice’s reading may thus be rendered: “So that far sooner we may compare him unto the Libyan, who was a mere man, and not the true God.” was in reality God. If, however, the assertion of this likeness is in itself accurate, and the sorcerer was the subject of a passion similar to Apsethus, let us endeavour to teach anew the parrots of Simon, that Christ, who stood, stands, and will stand, (that is, was, is, and is to come,) was not Simon. But (Jesus) was man, offspring of the seed of a woman, born of blood and the will of the flesh, as also the rest (of humanity). And that these things are so, we shall easily prove as the discussion proceeds.

Now Simon, both foolishly and knavishly paraphrasing the law of Moses, makes his statements (in the manner following): For when Moses asserts that “God is a burning and consuming fire,”596    Deut. iv. 24. taking what is said by Moses not in its correct sense, he affirms that fire is the originating principle of the universe. (But Simon) does not consider what the statement is which is made, namely, that it is not that God is a fire, but a burning and consuming fire, (thereby) not only putting a violent sense upon the actual law of Moses, but even plagiarizing from Heraclitus the Obscure. And Simon denominates the originating principle of the universe an indefinite power, expressing himself thus: “This is the treatise of a revelation of (the) voice and name (recognisable) by means of intellectual apprehension of the Great Indefinite Power.  Wherefore it will be sealed, (and) kept secret, (and) hid, (and) will repose in the habitation, at the foundation of which lies the root of all things.” And he asserts that this man who is born of blood is (the aforesaid) habitation, and that in him resides an indefinite power, which he affirms to be the root of the universe.

Now the indefinite power which is fire, constitutes, according to Simon, not any uncompounded (essence, in conformity with the opinion of those who) assert that the four elements are simple, and who have (therefore) likewise imagined that fire, (which is one of the four,) is simple. But (this is far from being the case): for there is, (he maintains,) a certain twofold nature of fire;597    The Abbe Cruice considers that Theodoret has made use of this passage. (See Hæret. Fab., i. 1.) and of this twofold (nature) he denominates one part a something secret, and another a something manifest, and that the secret are hidden in the manifest portions of the fire, and that the manifest portions of the fire derive their being from its secret (portions). This, however, is what Aristotle denominates by (the expressions) “potentiality” and “energy,” or (what) Plato (styles) “intelligible” and “sensible.” And the manifest portion of the fire comprises all things in itself, whatsoever any one might discern, or even whatever objects of the visible creation598    Or, τὸν ἀόρατον, the invisible one. he may happen to overlook. But the entire secret (portion of the fire) which one may discern is cognised by intellect, and evades the power of the senses; or one fails to observe it, from want of a capacity for that particular sort of perception. In general, however, inasmuch as all existing things fall under the categories, namely, of what are objects of Sense, and what are objects of Intellect, and as for the denomination of these (Simon) employs the terms secret and manifest; it may, (I say, in general,) be affirmed that the fire, (I mean) the super-celestial (fire), is a treasure, as it were a large tree, just such a one as in a dream was seen by Nabuchodonosor,599    Dan. iv. 10–12. out of which all flesh is nourished. And the manifest portion of the fire he regards as the stem, the branches, the leaves, (and) the external rind which overlaps them. All these (appendages), he says, of the Great Tree being kindled, are made to disappear by reason of the blaze of the all-devouring fire. The fruit, however, of the tree, when it is fully grown, and has received its own form, is deposited in a granary, not (flung) into the fire. For, he says, the fruit has been produced for the purpose of being laid in the storehouse, whereas the chaff that it may be delivered over to the fire.600    Matt. iii. 12; Luke iii. 17. (Now the chaff) is stem, (and is) generated not for its own sake, but for that of the fruit.

[9] Οὕτως ἡγητέον [τοὺς] Σίμωνα τὸν μάγον ἀπεικάζοντας τῷ Λίβυϊ τάχιον [τούτου τοῦ] ἀνθρώπου γενόμενον [οὕτως] θεόν. εἰ δὲ ἔχει τὰ τῆς εἰκόνος ἀκριβῶς καὶ πέπονθεν ὁ μάγος πάθος τι παραπλήσιον Ἀψέθῳ, ἐπιχειρήσομεν μεταδιδάσκειν τοῦ Σίμωνος τοὺς ψιττακοὺς ὅτι Χριστὸς οὐκ ἦν Σίμων ὁ ἑστὼς στὰς στησόμενος, ἀλλ' ἄνθρωπος [ἦν], ἐκ σπέρματος γέννημα γυναικός, ἐξ αἱμάτων καὶ ἐπιθυμίας σαρκικῆς καθάπερ καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ [ἄνθρωποι] γεγεννημένος: καὶ ὅτι ταῦθ' οὕτως ἔχει, προϊόντος τοῦ λόγου ῥᾳδίως ἐπιδείξομεν. Λέγει δὲ ὁ Σίμων μεταφράζων τὸν νόμον Μωϋσέως ἀνοήτως τε καὶ κακοτέχνως: Μωσέως γὰρ λέγοντος ὅτι «ὁ θεὸς πῦρ φλέγον ἐστὶ καὶ καταναλίσκον», δεξάμενος τὸ λεχθὲν ὑπὸ Μωσέως οὐκ ὀρθῶς, πῦρ εἶναι λέγει τῶν ὅλων τὴν ἀρχήν, οὐ νοήσας τὸ εἰρημένον ὅτι θεὸς οὐ πῦρ, ἀλλὰ πῦρ φλέγον καὶ καταναλίσκον, οὐκ αὐτὸν διασπῶν μόνον τὸν νόμον Μωσέως, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν σκοτεινὸν Ἡράκλειτον συλαγωγῶν. ἀπέραντον δὲ εἶναι δύναμιν ὁ Σίμων προσαγορεύει τῶν ὅλων τὴν ἀρχήν, λέγων οὕτως: «τοῦτο τὸ γράμμα Ἀποφάσεως φωνῆς καὶ ὀνόματος ἐξ ἐπινοίας τῆς μεγάλης δυνάμεως τῆς ἀπεράντου. διὸ ἔσται ἐσφραγισμένον [καὶ] κεκρυμμένον [καὶ] κεκαλυμμένον, κείμενον ἐν τῷ οἰκητηρίῳ, οὗ ἡ ῥίζα τῶν ὅλων τεθεμελίωται». οἰκητήριον δὲ λέγει εἶναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον τοῦτον, τὸν ἐξ αἱμάτων γεγεννημένον, καὶ κατοικεῖν ἐν αὐτῷ τὴν ἀπέραντον δύναμιν, ἣν ῥίζα[ν] εἶναι τῶν ὅλων φησίν. ἔστι δὲ ἡ ἀπέραντος δύναμις, τὸ πῦρ, κατὰ τὸν Σίμωνα οὐδὲν ἁπλοῦν, καθάπερ οἱ πολλοὶ ἁπλᾶ λέγοντες εἶναι τὰ τέσσαρα στοιχεῖα καὶ τὸ πῦρ ἁπλοῦν εἶναι νενομίκασιν, ἀλλὰ γὰρ εἶναι [τὴν] τοῦ πυρὸς διπλῆν τινα τὴν φύσιν: καὶ τῆς διπλῆς ταύτης καλεῖ τὸ μέν τι κρυπτόν, τὸ δέ τι φανερόν: κεκρύφθαι δὲ τὰ κρυπτὰ ἐν τοῖς φανεροῖς τοῦ πυρός, καὶ τὰ φανερὰ τοῦ πυρὸς ὑπὸ τῶν κρυπτῶν γεγονέναι. _ἔστι δὲ τοῦτο ὅπερ Ἀριστοτέλης δυνάμει καὶ ἐνεργείᾳ καλεῖ, ἢ Πλάτων νοητὸν καὶ αἰσθητόν. _καὶ τὸ μὲν φανερὸν τοῦ πυρὸς πάντα ἔχει ἐν ἑαυτῷ ὅσα ἄν τις ἐπινοήσῃ ἢ καὶ λάθῃ παραλιπὼν τῶν ὁρατῶν, τὸ δὲ κρυπτὸν πᾶν ὅ τι ἐννοήσει τις νοητὸν καὶ πεφευγὸς τὴν αἴσθησιν ἢ καὶ παραλείπει μὴ διανοηθείς. Καθόλου δὲ ἔστιν εἰπεῖν: πάντων τῶν ὄντων, αἰσθητῶν τε καὶ νοητῶν, ὧν ἐκεῖνος κρυφίων καὶ φανερῶν προσαγορεύει, ἔστι θησ(αυ)ρὸς τὸ πῦρ τὸ ὑπερουράνιον, οἱονεὶ δένδρον [τι] μέγα, ὡς [τὸ] δι' ὀνείρου βλεπόμενον τῷ Ναβουχοδονόσορ, «ἐξ οὗ πᾶσα σὰρξ τρέφεται». καὶ τὸ μὲν φανερὸν εἶναι τοῦ πυρὸς νομίζει τὸ πρέμνον, τοὺς κλάδους, τὰ φύλλα, τὸν ἔξωθεν αὐτῷ περικείμενον φλοιόν: ἅπαντα, φησί, ταῦτα τοῦ μεγάλου δένδρου ἀναφθέντα ὑπὸ τῆς παμφάγου τοῦ πυρὸς φλογὸς ἀφανίζεται: ὁ δὲ καρπὸς τοῦ δένδρου, ἐὰν ἐξεικονισθῇ καὶ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ μορφὴν ἀπολάβῃ, εἰς ἀποθήκην τίθεται, οὐκ εἰς τὸ πῦρ. γέγονε μὲν γάρ, φησίν, ὁ καρπός, ἵνα εἰς τὴν ἀποθήκην τεθῇ, τὸ δὲ ἄχυρον, ἵνα παραδοθῇ τῷ πυρί, ὅπερ ἐστὶ πρέμνον, οὐχ αὑτοῦ χάριν ἀλλὰ τοῦ καρποῦ γεγενημένον.