The origin, then, of the Roman legend was prob- ably the Leucian Acts. These are represented for us mainly by the Actus Petri cum Simone, the Leucian affinities of which have been shown by James (Apocrypha Anecdota, ii. p. xxiv); the irpdffts TliTpov Kal Ilai'Xou are an orthodox recasting of the story, with the exaggerated miraculous tendency omitted.
A separate line on which the legend developed is represented by the Clementine literature. A combination of arguments would incline us to put its date at the beginning of the 3rd cent, and its origin in Syria. The sources out of which it was composed must be very doubtful, as we have little to go on, hut the story is obviously made up of different elements. There is a story of Clement and his relations; there is a story of a dispute with Apion, which sometimes seems to have been put into the mouth of Peter, but in our texts is put into the mouth of Clement. There are certain K-qpiy- nara. or Preachings of Peter, and there is an account of the travels of Peter. But how much of this was derived from earlier sources and how much was the work of the compiler of the legend we have no means of determining. The story of the travels of Peter contained, obviously, an account of his journey from Cwsarea to Antioch, of the Churches that he founded during that journey, and the bishops and presbyters tliat he instituted. This is preserved in both our texts ; but was the dispute with Simon Magus part of the original document? It is usually supposed that it must have been ; but in tlie Recog- nitions, which is generally considered the older form of the story, the part of Simon is confined to Caesarea, and is an episode by itself. Again, does the author know of the Roman contest ? The refer- ences to Rome occur mainly in the Recognitions, and may have been introduced to adapt the story to a Roman audience. It is quite possible that the introduction of Simon Magus is due to the compiler of the work, and that his only historical source of knowledge about Simon waB Justin Martyr and, possibly, Hegesippus.
But if his sources are doubtful, his purpose is more clear. He is an Ebionite Christian by ex- traction, who has been influenced by the specula- tive ideas which we associate with Gnosticism, and he WTites to reconcile the conflicting claims of Judaism and Christianity. His main tenet is the Divine unity, and therefore he combats the poly- theism of the heathen, the dualism of Marcion, and Trinitarianism (if we may use the term). This last feature gives us his date, the period of the Monarchian controversy early in the 3rd cent.; and for this date there is also external evidence. Within the limits of a common Monotlieism he hopes to find room for both Jews and Christians, and
his references to the establishment of bishops and presbyters by Peter show that he wishes to adopt the existing ecclesiastical organization. There ia a certain amount of art in bis choice of characters. The defender of polytheism is Apion, perhaps the traditional opponent of Judaism ; the attack is put into the mouth of Clement, as obviously more fitted for such work than Peter. The one heretic of the apostolic age, Simon, who was the traditional source of all heresj*, is made tlie exponent of all false Christian teaching, and his natural combatant is Peter. Paul is never men- tioned by name, but anything like an overt attack on him would have been quite beside his purpose. There are no doctrines which were ascribed to Paul attacked in the person of Simon. Simon is not Paul, nor intended by the author to be Paul. He was obviously a WTiter witli considerable powers of invention ; he had a certain amount of history or legend or tradition, but he may very likely ba himself responsible for most of the personal episodes he describes, and for the use he has made of Simon. There is no evidence, at any rate, for any Ebionite Acts which he is supposed to have useu, nor any need to imagine them. One more feature must be referred to. Simon is \vith him the magician as well as the false teacher, and a great deal is said about the magical element, which requires all Peter's miraculous powers to dispel. The whole of this side of the legend appears absurdly puerile to a modern reader. But we are apt to forget that all the tricks Simon claimed to perform were believed in at the time, and that those who claimed to perform magical rites were among the most deter- mined opponents of Christianity. Majjio was a real danger, and a very subtle form of false teach- ing. It was the true spiritual force of Christianity which overcame it ; but numerous writers always ascribed this triumph to the exhibition of vulgar miraculous power.
It is maintained that this reconstruction of the history of the Simon legend represents a much more probable and consistent account of the origin of the story than the distorted and complicated theories which have appeared since the time of IJaur, and have rested chiefly on unproved hy^K)- theses of sources and fanciful reconstructions of the early historical period.*
vi. The Affinities of Simon's System.— The historical nucleus of the legend is, as we have seen, tlie narrative in the Acts, part of the story in Justin, the system as described by him belonging either to Simon himself or an earlier f(>Jlower, and perhaps some incidents recorded by the Clem- entines. When we accept this as origin!>l, the affinities of the system suggested by Baur and his followers become a legitimate explanation. Sam- aria was a country in which a sort of bastard Judaism came in contact with the old Syrian and Phoenician religions and the newer Hellenic paganism. All these different elements are present in Simon's system. That the relation of himself and Helena is a reminiscence of the Syrian male and female deity is equally natural, whether Helena be a real person (as is probable) or only the per- sonification of an idea. The fact that in one account — that of the Recognitions — she is oslled Luna (a translation of <re\-/ii/Ti), makes the parallel to the Sun and Moon worship, the Baal and Astarte, more close. Simon represents an aJmost pre-Christian Gnosticism, and it is significant that only here do we find this very repulsive dualistio element. Simon represents the impostor of the