enjoyment of apostolic privileges. But the latest scholarship shakes its
head gravely at the theory, and however bitter controversialists the
anti-Paulinists may have been, it is not likely that they would have
gone so far out of their way to vent their feelings in so grotesque a
fashion.

In conclusion of this Part let us take a general review of our
authorities with regard to the life of Simon and the immoral practices
attributed to his followers, including a few words of notice on the lost
Simonian literature, and reserving the explanation of his system and
some notice of magical practices for Part III.

I have distinguished the Simon of the fathers from the Simon of the
legends, as to biography, "by convention" and not "by nature," as the
Simonians would say, for the one and the other is equally on a mythical
basis. It is easy to understand that the rejection of the Simon of the
legends is a logical necessity for those who have to repudiate the
Ebionite Clementines. Admit the authenticity of the narrative as regards
Simon, and the authenticity of the other incidents about John the
Baptist and Peter would have to be acknowledged; but this would never
do, so Simon escapes from the clutches of his orthodox opponents as far
as this count is concerned.

But the biographical incidents in the fathers are of a similar nature
precisely to those in the Clementines, and their sources of information
are so vague and unreliable, and at such a distance from the time of
their supposed occurrence, that we have every reason to place them in
the same category with the Clementine legends. Therefore, whether we
reject the evidence or accept it, we must reject both accounts or accept
both. To reject the one and accept the other is a prejudice that a