1 [Presuming that all who are disposed to study this work will turn to Dr. Bunsen's first volume (Hippol.), I have not thought it wise to load the-e pages with references to his interesting reviewal.]
2 kata teleiwsin twn xronwn. This is Bunsen's emendation. The textual reading is meiwsin.
3 ekousiwj: Bunsen suggests anosiwj,i,e., profanely.
4 See Irenaeus, Haeres., i. 19, 20; Tertullian, Prescript., c, xlvi.; Epiphanius, Haeres., xxi.; Theodoret, Haeret. Fab., i. 1; St. Augustine, De Haeres., 1. See the apology of Justin Martyr (vol. i., this series, p. 171), who says, " There was a Samaritan, Simon, a native of the village called Gitto, who, in the reign of Claudius Caesar, and in your royal city of Rome, did mighty acts of magic, by virtue of the art of the devils operating in him."Simon's history and opinions i are treated of largely in the Recognitions of Clement. See vol. iii. of the Edinburgh series, pp. 156-271; [vol. viii. of this series].
5 In book iv. of The Refutation.
6 Acts viii. 9-24.
7 Miller refers us to Apostolius' Proverb., s.v. yafwn. Schneidewin remarks that Maximus Tyrius relates almost a similar story concerning one Psapho, a Libyan, in his Dissert. (xxxv.), and that Apostolius extracted this account and inserted it in his Cent., xviii. p. 730, ed. Leutsch, mentioning at the same time a similar narrative from Aelian's Hist., xiv. 30. See Justin., xxi. 4, and Pliny, Nat. Hist., viii. 16.
8 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."
9 Deut. iv. 24.
10 The Abbe Cruice considers that Theodoret has made use of this passage. (See Haeret. Fab., i, 1.)
11 Or, ton aoraton, the invisible one.
12 nwmatoj aisan: Miller has gnwmhn ishn, which yields but little sense.
13 These powers are thus arranged: 1. Mind and Intelligence: termed also, 1. Heaven and Earth. 2. Voice and Name 2. Sun and Moon. 3. "Ratiocination and Reflection," 3. Air and Water.
14 Gen. ii. 2.
15 Prov. viii. 22-24.
16 "Brooded over" (see Gen. i. 2).
17 Gen. ii. 7.
18 1 Cor. xi. 32.
19 Jer. i. 5.
20 xwrion(i.e, locality) is the reading in Miller, which Cruice ingeniously alters into xorion, the caul in which the foetus is enclosed, which is called the "after-birth."
21 Gen. ii. 10.
22 This rendering follow- Cruice, who has succeeded in clearing away the obscurity o( the passage as given in Miller.
23 Odyssey, x. 304 et seq. [See Butcher and Lang, p. 163.]
24 Isa. ii. 4.
25 Matt. iii. 10 ; Luke iii. 9.
26 In the Recognitions of Clementwe have this passage: "He (Simon) wishes himself to be believed to be an exalted power, which is above God the Creator, and to be thought to be the Christ, and to be called the standing one" (Ante-Nicene Library, ed. Edinburgh. vol. iii. p. 196).
27 The expression stan(standinq) was used by the scholastic as applicable to the divine nature. Interpreted in this manner, the words in the text would be equivalent with "which was, and is, and is to come" (Rev. i. 8). The Recognitions of Clementexplain the term thus: "He (Simon) use: this name as implying that he can never be dissolved, asserting that his flesh is so compacted by the power of his divinity, that it can endure to eternity. Hence, there-fore, he is called the standing one, as though he cannot fall by any corruption" (Ante-Nicene Library, vol. iii. p. 196). [To be found in vol. viii. of this series, with the other apocryphal Clementines.]
28 Gen. iii. 24.
29 Homer, for instance [See Epiphanius, Haeres., xxi. 3).
30 miaroj, Bunsen's emendation for yuxroj, the reading in Miller and Schneidewin. Some read yudroj, i.e., lying: others yeudoxristoj, i.e., counterfeit Christ. Cruice considers Bunsen's emenda-: tion unnecessary, as yuxrojmay be translated " absurd fellow."The word, literally meaning cold, is applied in a derived sense to persons who were heartless,-an import suitable to Hippolytus' meaning.
31 [See Irenaeus, vol. i. p. 348, and Bunsen's ideas, p. 50 of his first volume.]
32 This rendering is according to Bunsen's emendation of the text.
33 Cruice omits the word dedokhkenai, which seems in interpolation. The above rendering adopts the proposed emendation.
34 Bunsen thinks that there is an allusion here to the conversation of our Lord with the woman of Samaria, and it' so, that Menander, a disciple of Simon, and not Simon himself, was the author of The Great Announcement, as the heretic did not outlive St. Peter and Paul, and therefore died before the period at which St John's Gospel was written.
35 Miller reads fusin, which makes no sense. The rendering above follows Bunsen's emendation of the text. [Here it is equally interesting to the student of our author or of Irenaeus to turn to Bunsen (p. 51), and to observe his parallels.]
36 The Abbe Cruice considers that the statements made by Origen (Iontr. Celsum, lib. i. p. 44, ed Spenc.), respecting the followers of Simon in respect of number, militates against Origen's authorship of The Refutation.
37 This rendering follows the text of Schneidewin and Cruice. The Clementine Recognitions(Ante-Nicene Library, ed. Edinb., vol. iii. p. 273) represent Simon Magus as leaving for Rome, and St. Peter resolving to follow him thither. Miller's text is different and as emended by him, Hippolytus' account would harmonize with that given in the Acts. Miller's text may be thus translated: "And having been laid under a curse, as has been written in the Acts, he subsequently disapproved of his practices, and made an attempt to journey as far as Rome, but he fell in with the apostles," etc. The text or Cruice and Schneidewin seems less forced: while the statement itself-a new witness to this controverted point in ecclesiastical history concerning St. Peter-corroborates Hippolytus' authorship of The Refutation.
38 Justin Martyr mentions, as an instance of the estimation in which Simon Magus was held among his followers, that a statue was erected to him at Rome. Bunsen considers that the refection of this fable of Justin Martyr's, point to the author of The Refutationbeing a Roman, who would therefore, as he shows himself in the case of the statue, be better informed than the Eastern writer of any event occurring in the capital of the West. [Bunsen's magisterial decision (p. 53) is very amusingly characteristic.] Hippolytus' silence is a presumption against the existence of such a statue, though it is very possible he might omit to mention it, supposing it to be at Rome. At all events, the jvery precise statement of Justin Martyr ought not to be rejected on slight or confectural grounds. [See vol. i., this series, pp. 171 ,172, 182, 187, and 193. But our author relies on Irenaeus, same vol., p. 348. Why reject positive testimony?]