n one side and ticket them with the
contemptuous label of "superstition." We must recognize that whether or
not these things were actually done by Simon, the ancient world both
Pagan and Christian firmly believed in their reality, and that if our
only attitude towards them is one of blank denial, we include in that
denial the possibility of the so-called "miracles" of Christianity and
other great religions, and therewith invalidate one of the most
important factors of religious thought and history. That the present
attitude of denial is owing to the absurd explanation of the phenomena
given by the majority of the ancient worthies, is easily admissible, but
this is no reason why the denial of the possibilities of the existence
of such things should be logical or scientific.

As to the wonders ascribed to Simon, though extraordinary, they are
puerile compared to the ideals of the truly religious mind, and if
Simon used such marvels as proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he
unduly took advantage of the ignorance of the populace and was untrue to
his better nature.

Again, setting aside all historical criticism, if Simon, as the _Acts_
report, thought to purchase spiritual powers with money, or that those
who were really in possession of such powers would ever sell them, we
can understand the righteous indignation of the apostles, though we
cannot understand their cursing a brother-man. The view of the Christian
writer on this point is a true one, but the dogma that every operation
which is not done in the name of the particular Master of Christendom is
of the Devil--or, to avoid personifications, is evil--can hardly find
favour with those who believe in the brotherhood of the whole race and
that Deity is one, no matter under what form worshipped.

Finally, to sum up the matter, we have cited our authorities, and
reviewed them, and then endeavoured to sift out what is good from the
heap, leaving the rubbish to its fate. Removed as we are by so many
centuries from the fierce strife of religious controversy which so
deeply marked the rise of Christianity, we can view the matter with
impartiality and seek to redress the errors that are patent both on the
side of orthodoxy and of heterodoxy. It is true we cannot be free of the
past, but it is also true that to identify ourselves with the hates and
strifes of the ancients, is merely to retrogress from the path of
progress. On the contrary, our duty should be to identify ourse