14.  The inventor of all heresy was Simon Magus So Irenæus (I. xxiii. 2) says that “from this Simon of Samaria all kinds of heresies derive their origin.”:  that Simon, who in the Acts of the Apostles thought to purchase with money the unsaleable grace of the Spirit, and heard the words, Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter Acts viii. 18–21., and the rest:  concerning whom also it is written, They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us 1 John ii. 19..  This man, after he had been cast out by the Apostles, came to Rome, and gaining over one Helena a harlot Irenæus (I. xxiii. 2):  “Having purchased from Tyre, a city of Phœnicia, 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.”, was the first that dared with blasphemous mouth to say that it was himself who appeared on Mount Sinai as the Father, and afterwards appeared among the Jews, not in real flesh but in seeming Cf. Epiphan. (Hæres. p. 55, B):  “He said that he was the Son and had not really suffered, but only in appearance (δοκήσει).”, as Christ Jesus, and afterwards as the Holy Spirit whom Christ promised to send as the Paraclete Irenæus (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.”.  And he so deceived the City of Rome that Claudius set up his statue, and wrote beneath it, in the language of the Romans, “Simoni Deo Sancto,” which being interpreted signifies, “To Simon the Holy God “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 Cæsar, and in your royal city of Rome, did mighty feats of magic by the art of dæmons 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 Irenæus (adv. Hær. 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.’ “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,’ for one of Simon Magus.  See the notes in Otto’s Justin Martyr, and Stieren’s Irenæus. “On the other hand Tillemont (Memoires, 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.).”