Methodius, Maximus, Adamantius [Part One]

Methodius	Maximus	Adamantius
As I was walking yesterday evening, my friend, along the shore of the sea (πόντος), and was gazing on it somewhat intently, I saw an extraordinary instance of divine power, and a work of art produced by wise science, if at least such a thing may be called a work of art. For as that verse of Homer says—As when two adverse winds blowing from Thrace, Boreas and Zephyrus, the fishy deep Vex sudden, all around, the sable flood High curled, flings forth the salt weed on the shore; — So it seemed to me to have happened yesterday. For I saw waves very like mountain-tops, and, so to speak, reaching up to heaven itself. Whence I expected nothing else but that the whole land would be deluged, and I began to form in my mind a place of escape, and a Noah's ark. But it was not as I thought; for, just as the sea rose to a crest, it broke up again into itself, without overstepping its own limits, having, so to speak, a feeling of awe for a divine decree. Job 38:11 And as oftentimes a servant, compelled by his master to do something against his will, obeys the command through fear, while he dares not say a word of what he suffers in his unwillingness to do it, but, full of rage, mutters to himself—somewhat so it appeared to me that the sea, as if enraged and confining its awe within itself, kept itself under, as not willing to let its Master perceive its anger. On these occurrences I began to gaze in silence, and wished to measure in my mind the heaven and its sphere. I began to inquire whence it rises and where it sets; also what sort of motion it had— whether a progressive one, that is to say, one from place to place, or a revolving one; and, besides, how its movement is continued. And, of a truth, it seemed worth while to inquire also about the sun—what is the manner of his being set in the heaven; also what is the orbit he traverses; also whither it is that, after a short time, he retires; and why it is that even he does not go out of his proper course: but he, too, as one may say, is observing a commandment of a higher power, and appears with us just when he is allowed to do so, and departs as if he were called away. So, as I was investigating these things, I saw that the sunshine was departing, and the daylight failing, and that immediately darkness came on; and the sun was succeeded by the moon, who, at her first rising, was not of full size, but after advancing in her course presented a larger appearance. And I did not cease inquiring about her also, but examined the cause of her waning and waxing, and why it is that she, too, observes the revolution of days; and it seemed to me from all this that there is a divine government and power controlling the whole, which we may justly call God. And thereupon I began to praise the Creator, as I saw the earth fast fixed, and living creatures in such variety, and the blossoms of plants with their many hues. But my mind did not rest upon these things alone; but thereupon I began to inquire whence they have their origin— whether from some source eternally co-existent with God, or from Himself alone, none co-existing with Him; for that He has made nothing out of that which has no existence appeared to me the right view to take, unless my reason were altogether untrustworthy. For it is the nature of things which come into being to derive their origin from what is already existing. And it seemed to me that it might be said with equal truth, that nothing is eternally co-existent with God distinct from Himself, but that whatever exists has its origin from Him.
and I was persuaded of this also by the undeniable disposition of the elements, and by the orderly arrangement of nature about them. So, with some such thoughts of the fair order of things, I returned home. But on the day following, that is today, as I came I saw two beings of the same race— I mean men— striking and abusing one another; and another, again, wishing to strip his neighbour. And now some began to venture upon a more terrible deed; for one stripped a corpse, and exposed again to the light of day a body that had been once hidden in the earth, and treated a form like his own with such insult as to leave the corpse to be food for dogs; while another bared his sword, and attacked a man like himself. And he wanted to procure safety by flight; but the other ceased not from pursuing, nor would control his anger. And why should I say more? It is enough that be attacked him, and at once smote him with his sword. So the wounded man became a suppliant to his fellow, and spread out his hands in supplication, and was willing to give up his clothing, and only made a claim for life. But the other did not subdue his anger, nor pity his fellowman, nor would he see his own image in the being before him; but, like a wild beast, made preparations with his sword for feeding upon him. And now he was even putting his mouth to the body so like his own, such was the extent of his rage. And there was to be seen one man suffering injurious treatment, and another immediately stripping him, and not even covering with earth the body which he denuded of clothing. But, in addition to these, there was another who, robbing others of their marriage rights, wanted to insult his neighbour's wife, and urged her to turn to unlawful embraces, not wishing her husband to be father to a child of his own. After that I began to believe the tragedies, and thought that the dinner of Thyestes had really taken place; and believed in the unlawful lust of Oinomaos, nor doubted of the strife in which brother drew the sword on brother. So, after beholding such things as these, I began to inquire whence they arise, and what is their origin, and who is the author of such devices against men, whence came their discovery, and who is the teacher of them.		So thinking in some such way on how well the world was ordered, I was returning home. But on the next day [that is, today], when I arrived, I saw two men — of the same race, let me emphasise — wrangling among themselves, and abusing each other! Another, again, was trying to strip his neighbour. Some were beginning to dare things even more terrible, for a man plundered a buried corpse, dragging it to the surface and the light of the sun, thus insulting a form like his own, and leaving the dead as food for dogs. Another man bared his sword and attacked a person similar to himself. The latter tried to save himself by flight, but his assailant kept on pursuing him, and would not restrain his wrath. I do not need to say more: the pursuer reached the fugitive and struck with the sword, d Although his victim held out supplicating hands, the attacker did not abate his anger. Showing no mercy to one of his own race, nor recognizing himself in the image of the other man, he was like a wild beast, and began his devouring by means of the sword. So great was his wrath, that even now he was putting his mouth to a body like his own. Another could be seen despoiling an injured man; he had stripped him of his clothes, without even covering the body with earth. 84la On top of all this, a fellow came forward with the intention of fondling7 his neighbours wife, thus robbing another man of his marriage. Refusing the husband the right of lawful fatherhood, he was urging her to an illicit union. So now I began to believe the Tragedies... [It seemed to me that the Thyestean Banquet had really happened]. I credited even the drunken lust of Oenomaus, and no longer doubted the rivalry by which brother drew sword on brother. Having witnessed so many things just like these, I began to investigate their origin, the  source of their activity, b and who is the one who devised such great evils against mankind, to learn where they were discovered, and who teaches
Now to dare to say that God was the author of these things was impossible; for surely it could not even be said that they have from Him their substance, or their existence. For how were it possible to entertain these thoughts of God? For He is good, and the Creator of what is excellent, and to Him belongs nothing bad. Nay, it is His nature to take no pleasure in such things; but He forbids their production, and rejects those who delight in them, but admits into His presence those who avoid them. And how could it be anything but absurd to call God the maker of these things of which He disapproves? For He would not wish them not to be, if He had first been their creator; and He wishes those who approach Him to be imitators of Him. Wherefore it seemed to me unreasonable to attribute these things to God, or to speak of them as having sprung from Him though it must certainly be granted that it is possible for something to come into existence out of what has no existence, in case He made what is evil.		To dare to say that God is their maker was not possible. It could not be said either that they have the subsistence of their being from Him, for how could anyone think these things of God? He is Good, and the Maker of the Best; nothing bad belongs to him. It is not His nature, indeed, to rejoice in such things. He prohibits their production, rejecting those who do not find joy in them, but accepting those who flee them. It is most surely wicked to claim that God is the creator of these things when he rejects them. He wants those who draw near to Him to become His imitators, so I think it is unreasonable to fasten these things upon Him, either on the grounds that they had their existence from Him, or - if it were definitely agreed that something existing can come out of things that do not exist! - that He Himself made evil.
For He who brought them into existence out of non-existence would not reduce them to the loss of it. And again, it must be said that there was once a time when God took pleasure in evil things, which now is not the case. Wherefore it seems to me impossible to say this of God. For it is unsuitable to His nature to attach this to Him. Wherefore it seemed to me that there is co-existent with Him somewhat which has the name of matter, from which He formed existing things, distinguishing between them with wise art, and arranging them in a fair order, from which also evil things seem to have come into being. For as this matter was without quality or form, and, besides this, was borne about without order, and was untouched by divine art, God bore no grudge against it, nor left it to be continually thus borne about, but began to work upon it, and wished to separate its best parts from its worst, and thus made all that it was fitting for God to make out of it; but so much of it as was like lees, so to speak, this being unfitted for being made into anything, He left as it was, since it was of no use to Him; and from this it seems to me that what is evil has now streamed down among men. This seemed to me the right view to take of these things.		He who brought them into existence from non-existence would not blot them out of existence again, but if He did, it must be said that there was a time once when God rejoiced in evil, but that He does so no more. This is exactly what I think one cannot say of God, for it is incongruous with His nature to fix this on Him. Therefore I think that there co-exists with Him something that is called "matter", from which He created existing things, separating them with wise skill, and arranging them well, and that it is from this "matter" that evil seems to come. Thus, when it was inert and formless, moving about without any order, and lacking God's skill, He bore it no ill will, nor did He leave it to exist constantly in this state.  Instead, He began to create, wanting to separate the best elements from the worst.  In this way then, God created.  However, He had to leave as they were all those elements that were unsuitable to the process of making, because they were - so to speak - turbid and impure.  They were in no way fitted to His purpose.  It is from these, I think, that evil now streams out on mankind. It appeared to me that this was the best way to understand the matter
But, my friend, if you think that anything I have said is wrong, mention it, for I exceedingly desire to hear about these things
		DR: I think that an absolutely correct and impartial explanation has been offered by the wise Valentinus.  Yet, if anyone should want to argue against it, let him come forward, for I am ready to answer all opponents.
		AD: Please put aside your preconceived ideas, and give an answer calmly to all the questions I am going to ask you.
		DR: I intend to debate in a calm and orderly way; I have no desire to gain the victory by false means, but only to discuss matters fairly.
ORTHOD. I appreciate your readiness, my friend, and applaud your zeal about the subject		AD. I appreciate your willingness and sincerity.
		However you deceive yourself, Droserius,
and as for the opinion which you have expressed respecting existing things, to the effect that God made them out of some underlying substance,		when you dispose of the issue in such a way that God is said to have created existing things from some existing substance.
I do not altogether find fault with it.
For, truly, the origin of evil is a subject that has called out opinions from many men.  Before you and me, no doubt, there have been many able men who have made the most searching inquiry into the matter. And some of them expressed the same opinion as you did, but others again represented God as the creator of these things, fearing to allow the existence of substance as coeval with Him		As a matter of fact the question of evil has caused many to deal with the issue after that manner.   There have been a large number who have taken the view you do, but there have been others again who declared that God is the creator of evil, because they fear to admit a substance as coeval with Him.
		Still others,
while the former,
from fear of saying that God was the author of evil, thought fit to represent matter as coeval with Him.  And it was the fate of both of these to fail to speak rightly on the subject, in consequence of their fear of God not being in agreement with an accurate knowledge of the truth.		fearing to call God the maker of evil, felt that they must assume matter to be coeval with Him.  It happened that in both cases they were in error, because their fear of God was not based on knowledge of the truth.
But others declined to inquire about such a question at all, on the ground that such an inquiry is endless. As for me, however, my connection with you in friendship does not allow me to decline the subject of inquiry, especially when you announce your own purpose, that you are not swayed by prejudice—although you had your opinion about the condition of things derived from your conjectures—but say that you are confirmed in a desire of knowing the truth.  Wherefore I will willingly turn to the discussion of the question. But I wish this companion of mine here to listen to our conversation. For, indeed, he seems to have much the same opinions about these things as you have, wherefore I wish that you should both have a share in the discussion. For whatever I should say to you, situated as you are, I shall say just as much to him.
If, then, you are indulgent enough to think I speak truly on this great subject, give an answer to each question I ask; for the result of this will be that you will gain a knowledge of the truth, and I shall not carry on my discussion with you at random.		Nevertheless, as you are so much in earnest, I will turn to the subject under discussion. If you will answer carefully all the questions I shall ask, you will know the truth and I shall not have reasoned with you in vain.
VAL. I am ready to do as you say; and therefore be quite ready to ask those questions from which you think I may be able to gain an accurate knowledge of this important subject. For the object which I have set before myself is not the base one of gaining a victory, but that of becoming thoroughly acquainted with the truth. Wherefore apply yourself to the rest of the discussion.		DR: I am ready to defend the views of Valentinus.
		AD: What proofs have you that Matter is coexistent with God?
		DR: Does it not say in Genesis, "that the earth was invisible and unformed?"
		EUTR: Does it say that the earth was, and was not made by God?
		DR: With your permission, I will read.
		AD: Many people dream in their sleep that they possess great riches, only to discover on waking up, that their hands hold nothing - the dream was but a vain hope.  Droserius is like that.  Ask therefore that the Scripture dealing with the Creation be read, and you will learn whether it was the earth that pre-existed, or matter.
		EUTR: Let the Scripture be read. "In the beginning God created the heaven, and earth.  And the earth was invisible and unformed."
		AD: You see, Sir, the wicked scheme of Droserius, when the Scripture says that first God made heaven and earth, and then it had existence.  It did not say, In the beginning was the earth, but, "In the beginning God created heaven and earth", and then a little lower down, "And the earth was invisible."
		EUTR: The Scripture plainly shows that heaven and earth are a work of God. It clearly places the deed first and then adds, "It was ...".  The state of existence necessarily has to follow the act of bringing into existence.
		AD: Let us return to the question under discussion: Valentinus wants to affirm that matter is coexistent with God so that he may demonstrate that God is not the cause of evil.
		DR: Yes
		AD: Was God separated from this matter or united with it?
		DR: He was separated from it.
		AD: Then He was united with Matter, for there was nothing separating them. But looked at from another angle, your statement makes God exist only in part - He cannot thus be everywhere.
		EUTR: It is impossible for something to be separated from something else if there is nothing to separate them. And that which separates must needs be stronger than that which is being separated. So there will be, above all, a third part - the God who holds them all together! What do you say, then, Droserius? Is God in a part only, and not everywhere?
		DR: I do not claim that God is in part only; but that He is not responsible for evil.
		AD: You want to say that He is not responsible in theory, but in practice both Valentinus and you have taught that He is the creator and reservoir of evil.
		DR: How is that?
		AD: The discussion as it advances, will reveal this teaching,
ORTHOD. Well, then, I do not suppose you are ignorant that it is impossible for two uncreated things to exist together, although you seem to have expressed nearly as much as this in an earlier part of the conversation. Assuredly we must of necessity say one of two things: either that God is separate from matter, or, on the other hand, that He is inseparable from it.  If, then, one would say that they are united, he will say that that which is uncreated is one only, for each of the things spoken of will be a part of the other; and as they are parts of each other, there will not be two uncreated things, but one composed of different elements.	'I do not suppose that you any more than myself are ignorant that it is impossible for two unoriginate things to subsist together, although you certainly seem to have attached to your argument this presupposition, that it is absolutely necessary to affirm one of two things, either that God is separate from matter, or on the other hand that He is inseparable from it.  'Should any one therefore choose to say that He is united with it, that will be an assertion that the Uncreate is one only; for each will be a part of the other, and being parts each of the other they will not be two uncreated, but one consisting of different parts;	Now I do not think you are ignorant that two uncreated things cannot exist together, although you appear to have intended this in the previous discussion.  Quite clearly we must say one of two things: either that God is separated from Matter, or that He is inseparable from it.  If anyone should really want Him to be united to it, he would speak of only one uncreated body, for each of them will, in that case, be a part of the other.  But as they are parts of one another, there will not be two uncreateds, but one, compound of diverse elements.
For we do not, because a man has different members, break him up into many beings. But, as the demands of reason require, we say that a single being, man, of many parts, has been created by God. So it is necessary, if God be not separate from matter, to say that that which is uncreated is one only	for as we do not say that man though consisting of different parts is broken up into the small coin of many created things, but, as reason requires, we say that man is one being of many parts created by God, so, if God is not separate from matter, we must necessarily say that the Uncreated is one only.
but if one shall say that He is separate, there must necessarily he something intermediate between the two, which makes their separation evident.	'But if any one shall affirm that He is separate, there must of necessity be something that is intermediate between the two, which also makes their separation evident.	If, however, someone should say that God is separated from Matther, there must be something between them that shows the separation.
For it is impossible to estimate the distance of one thing from another, unless there be something else with which the distance between them may be compared. And this holds good, not only as far as the instance before us, but also to any number of others. For the argument which we advanced in the case of two uncreated things would of necessity be of equal force, were the uncreated things granted to be three in number.  For I should ask also respecting them, whether they are separate from each other, or, on the other hand, are united each to its neighbour. For if any one resolve to say that they are united, he will be told the same as before; if, again, that they are separate, he will not escape the necessary existence of that which separates them.	For it is impossible that one thing can be proved to be separate from another, when there is no third in which the separation between them is found. And this stands true not only in this and any single case, but in very many. 'For the argument which we used in the case of two uncreated beings must necessarily succeed equally well, if the uncreated things were admitted to be three.   For in their case also I should ask, whether they are separated one from another, or on the contrary each united to his neighbour. 'So if any one should choose to say that they were united, he will receive the same answer as the first; but if, on the contrary, that they are separated, he cannot avoid the necessary existence of something that separates them.
If, then, any one were to say that there is a third account which might fitly be given of uncreated things, namely, that neither is God separate from matter, nor, again, are they united as part of a whole; but that God is locally situate in matter, and matter in God, he must be told as the consequence, that if we say that God is placed in matter, we must of necessity say that He is contained within limits, and circumscribed by matter. But then He must, equally with matter, be carried about without order.	'But if perchance any one should say that there is also a third statement which may fitly be made concerning things uncreated, that is, that God is not separated from matter, nor on the other hand united with it as a part, but that God exists as it were locally in matter or matter in God, let him receive the conclusive answer, that if we call matter the place of God, we must of necessity say that He can also be contained, and is circumscribed by matter. 'Moreover He must be carried about like matter in a disorderly way,	And if anyone says that God is, as it were, where Matter is, or Matter where God is, let him hear what this involves: if we say God is where Matter is, we shall also have to say that He must be able to be contained, and to be enclosed by Matter; in fact that, like MatterHe must be carried about in disorder
And that He rests not, nor remains by Himself, is a necessary result of that in which He is being carried, now this way, and now that.	and does not remain settled and constant in Himself, when that in which He exists is carried now this way and now that.
And besides this, we must say that God was in worse case still. For if matter were once without order, and He, determining to change it for the better, put it into order, there was a time when God was in that which had no order. And I might fairly ask this question also, whether God filled matter completely, or existed in some part of it. For if one resolve to say that God was in some part of matter, how far smaller than matter does he make Him; that is, if a part of it contained God altogether. But if he were to say that He is in all of it, and is extended through the whole of matter, he must tell us how He wrought upon it. For we must say that there was a sort of contraction of God, which being effected, He wrought upon that from which He was withdrawn, or else that He wrought in union with matter, without having a place of withdrawal. But if any one say that matter is in God, there is equal need of inquiry, namely, whether it is by His being separated from Himself, and as creatures exist in the air, by His being divided and parted for the reception of the beings that are in Him; or whether it is locally situated, that is to say, as water in land; for if we were to say, as in the air, we must say that God is divisible; but if, as water in earth—since matter was without order and arrangement, and besides, contained what was evil—we must say, that in God were to be found the disorderly and the evil. Now this seems to me an unbecoming conclusion, nay, more a dangerous one.	And besides this we must also say that God has existed in things of worse nature. For if matter was once without order, and He wishing to change it for the better put it into order, there was a time when God was in things without order. 'I might also fairly ask this question, whether God completely filled matter, or was in some portion only of it. If then any one should choose to say that God was in some portion of matter, he makes Him very much smaller than matter, if indeed a part of it contained the whole of Him: but if he should say that God is in all matter, he has to explain how He was to work upon it. For he must either say that there was a sort of contraction of God, and that when this was effected He wrought upon that part from which He had receded; or else that He wrought upon Himself together with the matter, not having any place into which He could withdraw. 'If however any one shall say that matter is in God, it is equally necessary to inquire whether it is by God's being separated from Himself, just as tribes of living creatures subsist in the air, by its being divided and parted for the reception of the creatures that arise in it; or whether matter is in God as in a place, that is, as water is in land. 'For if we should say, "As in the air," we must necessarily say that God is divisible: but if, "As water is in land," and if matter was in confusion and disorder, and moreover contained evils, we are compelled to say that God is the place of disorder and evil: which seems to me an irreverent statement, nay more, a dangerous one.	In addition we must say that God has come into even worse straits, for if Matter was once without order, and deciding to change it into a better state. he put it in order, there was a time when God was within disordered elements. I might indeed, properly ask whether God filled Matter, or existed as part of it. If one were to say that God is in some part of Matter, how much less than Matter does he make Him - that is, if part of it contained the whole of God! If however, one were to say that God is in the whole of Matter, and permeates it all, let him explain how He created it. It would have to be said that God underwent some contraction, and that when this had taken place, He created that from which He had withdrawn; or, that He worked together with Matter, because He had no place to which He could withdraw.  But if someone says that matter is in God, then it is equally right to ask whether He worked as it were in some place - that is, like water in the ground.  Now should someone say that God acted like creatures in the air, he would have to admit that He is divisible, but if he said that God worked like water on the ground, because Matter was without order and arrangement - and besides this, contained evil - he would also have to say that the place of the disorderly and the evil is God.  Now I think that this is not only irreverent, but - worse still - is dangerous.
		DR: In order to show that God is not responsible for evil, Valentinus fastened it upon Matter, so that Matter, not God, might be responsible
For you wish for the existence of matter, that you may avoid saying that God is the author of evil	For you claim the existence of matter in order to avoid calling God the author of evil,	AD: You desire the co-existence of Matter with God, so that you may avoid saying that God is the maker of evil,
		but, although you plan to escape this, you appear to do so only in word; actually, when the position is thoroughly examined, you demonstrate that God is the reservoir and the creator of evil.
you say that He is the receptacle of evil.	you say that He is the receptacle of evil.
If, then, under the supposition that matter is separate from created substances, you had said that it is uncreated,	'Now if you had said that from the nature of existing creatures you supposed matter to be uncreated,	If then you want to make the guess that Matter exists uncreated from subsisting things
I should have said much about it, to prove that it is impossible for it to be uncreated	I should have had much to say about matter in proof that it cannot possibly be uncreated.
but since you say that the question of the origin of evil is the cause of this supposition, it therefore seems to me right to proceed to inquire into this. For when it is clearly stated how evil exists, and that it is not possible to say that God is the cause of evil, because of matter being subject to Him, it seems to me to destroy such a supposition, to remark, that if God created the qualities which did not exist, He equally created the substances. Do you say then, that there co-exists with God matter without qualities out of which He formed the beginning of this world?	But since you said that the origin of evil was the cause of such a supposition, I therefore think it well to proceed to the examination of this latter point. For when a clear statement has been given of the mode in which evils exist, and of the impossibility of denying that God is the author of evil, if matter is attributed to Him, I think that such a supposition is utterly overthrown. 'You say then that co-existing from the beginning with God there is matter without qualities, out of which He formed the beginning of this world? '	but since you say that the origin of evil is the cause of your guess, I think I ought to proceed to examine this question.  Once it has been clearly shown how evil exists, and tht it cannot be claimed that God is not the cause of evil simply by substituting Matter for Him, I think such a guess will be refuted.  You say then that Matter [without qualities] coexists with God, and that out of this he created the world at the beginning.
VAL. So I think.	'Such is my idea.'	DR: That is what I claim
ORTHOD. If, then, matter had no qualities, and the world were produced by God, and qualities exist in the world, then God is the maker of qualities?	'Well then, if matter was without qualities, and if the world has been made by God, and there are qualities in the world, God must have been the maker of the qualities.'	AD: So if Matter is without qualities, and God made the world, yet qualities are in the world, God made the qualities.
VAL. It is so.	'That is true.'
Orthodoxus. Now, as I heard you say some time ago that it is impossible for anything to come into being out of that which has no existence, answer my question: Do you think that the qualities of the world were not produced out of any existing qualities?	'Now since I heard you say before, that it is impossible for anything to be made out of the non-existent, answer me this question of mine. Do you think that the qualities of the world have not been produced out of pre-existing qualities?'	I heard you read earlier that nothing can come into existence from non-existence; will you then answer this question: do you think that the qualities of the world have not come from existing qualities
VAL. I do.	'I think so.'	DR: That is how it seems to me me
ORTHOD. And that they are something distinct from substances?	'But are something else besides the substances?'	AD: And that they are distinct from the substances themselves?
VAL. Yes.	'That is so.'	DR: I say that they are distinct from the substances
ORTHOD. If, then, qualities were neither made by God out of any ready at hand, nor derive their existence from substances, because they are not substances. we must say that they were produced by God out of what had no existence. Wherefore I thought you spoke extravagantly in saying that it was impossible to suppose that anything was produced by God out of what did not exist.	'If then God made the qualities neither out of pre-existing qualities, nor out of the substances, because they are not themselves substances, we are compelled to say that they have been made by God out of non-existents. And hence I thought it was too much for you to say, that it was impossible to suppose that anything has been made by God out of non-existents.	AD: Therefore, if God did not create the qualities from existing qualities, nor do they arise out of the substances, because they are not substances, nor do they arise out of the substances, because they are not substances, we must say that they have been made by God out of Non-existence.
		Thus you seem to say too much when you assert that it is impossibel to believe that anything has been created by God from nothing.
		VALENS said, on this subject, Droserius has reached an absurd conclusion by maintaining that Matter is without qualities.
		AD: Well, what do you say?  That the qualities coexist with Matter?
		VAL: I consider that Matter has qualities that are eternal.  I claim also that evil comes thus from its own outflowing so that God may not be held responsible, but that Matter may be recognized as the cause of them all.
		AD: Valens does not even believe in Valentinus, his own teacher for he refutes his doctrine.
		VAL: How is that?
		EUTR: You say that matter coexists with God, and the qualities also coexist. If Matter was pre-existent, and the qualities also coexisted, it is pointless to say that God was creator. So either Valentinus will be found to have given an unsatisfactory explanation, or Valens - but more likely both of them.
		AD: Will Valens please answer a few questions?
		VAL: Mention them.
		AD: In what sense do you say that God was creator?  Did He change the substances so that they were now no longer what they had been before, but had become something different, or did He retain the substances, but change their qualities?
		VAL: I do not think that He has made any change of the substances, but I do say that there was been some change of the qualities, and I claim with respect to these that God is creator.
But let our discussion of this matter stand thus. For truly we see among ourselves men making things out of what does not exist, although they seem for the most part to be making them with something. As, for instance, we may have an example in the case of architects; for they truly do not make cities out of cities, nor in like manner temples out of temples.  But if, because substances underlie these things, you think that the builders make them out of what does exist, you are mistaken in your calculation.	'However, let the argument on this point stand as follows: Even among ourselves we see men making some things out of what is non-existent, however much they seem to be making them in some material: as for instance let us take our example in the case of architects. For they make cities not out of cities, and temples in like manner not out of temples. 'But if, because there are substances underlying these things, you suppose that they make them out of existing things, your argument deceives you.
For it is not the substance which makes the city or the temples,	For it is not the substance that makes the city, or the temples,	Just as, if someone should say that a house had been built out of stones, it would not, therefore be said that stones were no longer in the house before they had become a house
but art applied to substance. And this art is not produced out of some art which lies in the substances themselves, but from that which is not in them. But you seem likely to meet me with this argument: that the artificer makes the art which is connected with the substance out of the art which he has. Now I think it is a good reply to this to say, that in man it is not produced from any art lying beneath; for it is not to be granted that substance by itself is art. For art is in the class of accidents, and is one of the things that have an existence only when they are employed about some substance. For man will exist even without the art of building, but it will have no existence unless man be previously in being. Whence we must say that it is in the nature of things for arts to be produced in men out of what has no existence. If, then, we have shown that this is so in the case of men, why was it improper to say that God is able to make not only qualities, but also substances, out of that which has no existence? For as it appears possible for something to be produced out of what exists not, it is evident that this is the case with substances.	but the art which is employed about the substance; and the art is not produced out of some underlying art in the substances, but is produced out of an art which is non-existent in them. 'But I suppose you will meet my argument in this way, that the artist makes the art which is in the material substance out of the art which he has in himself. Now in answer to this I think it may fairly be said, that it is not produced even in the man out of any underlying art. For it is not possible to grant that the art exists independently by itself, since it is one of the accidents, and one of those things which have existence given to them at the moment when they are produced in a substance. 'For the man will exist even apart from his skill as an architect, but this will have no existence unless there be first a man. And hence we are compelled to say that it is the nature of the arts to be produced in men out of what is non-existent. If therefore we have now shown this to be so in the case of men, why was it not proper to say that God was able to make not only qualities but also substances out of what was non-existent? For the proof that it is possible for something to be made out of what is non-existent shows that this is the case with the substances also.
	'But since you are anxious
To return to the question of evil.	to inquire concerning the origin of evil,
	I will pass to the discussion of that subject.
		AD: Since you say, then, that a certain change of qualities was brought about by God, please
	And I wish first to ask you a few questions.	answer a few questions I want to ask.
		VAL: Ask your questions, by all means.
Do you think evil comes under the head of substances, or of qualities of substances?	Do you think that evils are substances, or qualities of substances?	AD: Do you think that evil things consist of qualities of substances, or of substances?
VAL. Of qualities.	'I think it is right to say that they are qualities of substances	VAL: It consists of qualities of substances.
ORTHOD. But matter was found to be without quality or form?	'But matter, we said, has no quality nor shape?
VAL. It was.	'So I declared in the preface to my argument.
	'If therefore evils are qualities of substances, and matter had no qualities, but God, you said, was the maker of qualities, God must be also the creator of evils.
	When therefore even in this way it is impossible to say that God is not the cause of evils,
	it seems to me superfluous to attach matter to Him. But if you have anything to say against this, begin your argument.
	'If our inquiry arose out of contentiousness, I should not think it right to give a second definition of evils: but since it is rather for the sake of friendship and the benefit of our neighbour that we are examining the questions, I think it right to allow a new definition concerning them.
	'I think it must have been long manifest to you, that my purpose and my earnest desire in our arguments is, that I do not wish to gain a victory by plausible statement of falsehood, but that the truth should be shown by means of accurate inquiry. And I clearly understand that you also are so disposed. Wherefore employ without any diffidence whatever kind of method you think will enable you to find the truth: for by employing the better method you will benefit not only yourself, but certainly me also on matters of which I am ignorant.'
	'I think you plainly admitted that evils also are a kind of substances? '
	'Yes, for I do not see them existing anywhere apart from substances.'
	'Since then you say, my good sir, that evils also are substances, it is necessary for us to examine the definition of substance. Is it your opinion that substance is a kind of concrete body? '
	'It is.'
	'And does the concrete body subsist of itself independently, not requiring anything from whose previous existence it may receive its being? '
	'Just so.'
	'And do you think that evils depend on action of some kind? '
	'So it seems to me.'
	'And do actions come into being at the moment when the agent is present?'
	'Such is the case.'
	'And when the agent does not exist, there will never be any action of his? '
	'There will not.'
ORTHOD. Well, then, the connection of these names with substance is owing to its accidents.	'Well then, if substance is a kind of concrete body, and this requires nothing in union with which it may begin to exist, and if evils are actions of some agent, and if actions do require something in union with which they begin to exist, evils cannot be substances.
For murder is not a substance, nor is any other evil; but the substance receives a cognate name from putting it into practice. For a man is not (spoken of as) murder, but by committing it he receives the derived name of murderer, without being himself murder; and, to speak concisely, no other evil is a substance; but by practising any evil, it can be called evil. Similarly consider, if you imagine anything else to be the cause of evil to men, that it too is evil by reason of its acting by them, and suggesting the committal of evil.	'But if evils are substances, and murder is an evil, murder will be a substance: yet surely murder is an action of some one, and so murder is not a substance. If however you mean that the agents are substances, I too agree. For example, a man who is a murderer, in respect of his being man is a substance: but the murder which he does is not a substance, but a work of the substance.
For a man is evil in consequence of his actions. For he is said to be evil, because he is the doer of evil.	'So we say in one case that the man is evil, because of his committing murder, and in a contrary case that he is good, because of his doing good.
Now what a man does, is not the man himself, but his activity, and it is from his actions that he receives the title of evil. For if we were to say that he is that which he does, and he commits murders, adulteries, and such-like, he will be all these.	And these names are attached to the substance in consequence of its accidents (συμβεβηκότων), which are not itself: for the substance is not murder, nor again adultery, or any of the like evils.
	But just as the grammarian is named from grammar, and the rhetorician from rhetoric, and the physician from the art of physic, though his substance is neither the art of physic nor yet rhetoric, nor grammar, but receives the name from its accidents(συμβεβηκότων),  from which it seems fit to be so called, although it is neither one nor the other of them, in like manner it appears to me that the substance also acquires an additional name from what are thought to be evils, though it is neither of them.
	'And in like manner if you imagine some other being in the mind as the cause of evils in men, I would have you consider that he also, inasmuch as he works in them and suggests the doing evil, is himself evil in consequence of what he does. For he too is said to be evil for this reason that he is the doer of evils. But the things which any one does are not himself, but his actions, from which he receives the name of being evil. 'For if we were to say that he himself is what he does, and if he does murders and adulteries and thefts and all the like,
Now if he is these, then when they are produced he has an existence, but when they are not, he too ceases to be.	then he himself is these: and if he is himself these, and these gain real existence at the time of being done, and in ceasing to be done cease to exist, and it is by men that they are done----then the men must be the makers of themselves and the causes of their own being and ceasing to be.
'Whereas if you say that these are his actions, he has the character of being evil from what he does, not from what constitutes his substance. But we said that a man is called evil from the accidents pertaining to his substance, which are not the substance itself, as the physician from the art of physic.
Now these things are produced by men. Men then will be the authors of them, and the causes of their existing or not existing. But if each man is evil in consequence of what he practises, and what he practises has an origin, he also made a beginning in evil, and evil too had a beginning. Now if this is the case, no one is without a beginning in evil, nor are evil things without an origin.	'If then each man is evil in consequence of his actions, and if his actions receive a beginning of existence, then that man also began to be evil, and these evils too had a beginning. And if this is so, a man will not be without a beginning in evil, nor evils un-originate, because we say that they originate with him.'
VAL. Well, my friend, you seem to me to have argued sufficiently against the other side. For you appeared to draw right conclusions from the premises which we granted to the discussion. For truly if matter is without qualities, then God is the maker of qualities; and if evils are qualities, God will be the author of evils. But it seems to me false to say that matter is without qualities; for it cannot be said respecting any substance that it is without qualities. But indeed, in the very act of saying that it is without qualities, you declare that it has a quality, by describing the character of matter, which is a kind of quality. Therefore, if you please, begin the discussion from the beginning; for it seems to me that matter never began to have qualities. For such being the case, I assert, my friend, that evil arises from its emanation.	'The argument against your opponent you seem to me, my friend, to have completed satisfactorily. For from the premises which you assumed for your argument you seemed to draw the conclusion fairly. For in very truth, if matter was without qualities, and God is the maker of qualities, and evils are qualities, then God must be the maker of evils. 'As to the argument then against that opponent, let us grant that it has been well stated: but in my opinion it is false to say that matter has no qualities; for of no substance whatever is it permissible to say that it is without qualities. For while describing what kind of thing matter is, the speaker indicates its quality by saying that it is without qualities, for that is a certain kind of quality. 'Therefore, if you please, take up the argument again from the beginning against me; since in my opinion matter has qualities eternally and without beginning. For so I maintain that evils arise from the emanation of matter, in order that God may not be the cause of evils, but matter the cause of them all.'
	'I welcome your ready zeal, my friend, and commend your earnestness in these discussions. For certainly every one who wishes to learn ought not to assent simply and at random to what is said, but should make a strict examination of'the arguments. For even if the opponent by giving a false definition affords his adversary an opportunity of drawing such a conclusion as he pleases, it does not follow that he will persuade the hearer of this, but if he shall say what seems possible to be said fairly. From which one of two things must follow; for either he will gain the full benefit of hearing an answer to the question which seems to be stirred, or he will convict his opponent in the argument of saying what is not true.
ORTHOD. If matter were possessed of qualities from eternity, of what will God be the creator? For if we say substances, we speak of them as pre-existing; if, again, we say qualities, these too are declared to have an existence. Since, then, both substances and qualities exist, it seems to me superfluous to call God a creator. But answer me a question. In what way do you say that God was a creator? Was it by changing the existence of those substances into non-existence, or by changing the qualities while He preserved the substances?	'I think then that you ought not to have stated that matter possesses qualities eternally. For if this is so, of what will God be the maker? For whether we say substances, these we affirm existed before; or on the other hand qualities, these also were there. 'Since therefore substance exists, and qualities also, it seems to me superfluous to say that God is a creator. But that I may not seem to be arranging an argument for myself, do you now answer the question, in what way do you say that God is a creator? Is it that He changed the substances so that they were no longer those which they once were, but became others different from them? Or that He kept the substances the same that they were before, but changed their qualities? '
VAL. I think that there was no change of the substances, but only of the qualities; and in respect to these we call God a creator. And just as if one might chance to say that a house was made of stones, it cannot be said of them that they do not still continue stones in substance, because they are called a house;	'I do not at all think that there has been any change of substances: for this appears to me an absurd thing to say. But I assert that there has been a certain change of the qualities, in respect to which I say that God is a creator; just as if one should chance to say that a house has been made out of stones, of which we cannot say that they are no longer stones in their substance, when the stones have become a house.
for I affirm that the house is made by the quality of construction. So I think that God, while substance remained, produced a change of its qualifies, by reason of which I say that this world was made by God.	'For I say that the house has been made by the quality of construction, the former quality of the stones having evidently been changed. Just so it seems to me that God also, while the substance remains, has made a certain change in its qualities, in reference to which I say that the creation of this world has come from God.'
ORTHOD. Do you think, too, that evil is among the qualities of substances?	'Since therefore you assert that a certain change of the qualities has come from God, answer me a few questions which I propose to ask. Tell me now whether like myself you also think that evils are qualities of substances? '
VAL. I do.	'I think so.'
Orthodoxus. And were these qualities in matter from the first, or had they a beginning?	'And were these qualities in matter eternally, or had they a beginning of existence?'	AD: Were these qualities in Matter from the first, or did they have a beginning?
Valentinian. I say that these qualities were eternally co-existent with matter.	'I say that these very qualities were eternally co-existent with matter.'	VAL: I believe that these qualities were eternally coexistent with Matter.
ORTHOD. But do you not say that God has made a change in the qualities?	'But do you not say that God has made some change of the qualities?'	AD: But do you not claim that God made a certain change of the qualities?
VAL. I do say this.	'That is what I say.'	VAL: That is what I assert.
ORTHOD. For the better?	'Was the change then for the better or for the worse? '	AD: Did He change them for the better or the worse?
VAL. I think so.	'I am disposed to say, for the better.'	VAL: Clearly it was for the better.
ORTHOD. If, then, evil is among the qualities of matter, and its qualities were changed by God for the better, the inquiry must be made whence evil arose.	'Well then, if evils are qualities of matter, and God changed its qualities for the better, we are compelled to ask, whence came the evils.	AD: Well then, if evil consists of qualities of Matter, and God changed its qualities for the better, we must seek the origin of evil,
	For the qualities did not remain of the same kind as they were by nature.	for the qualities did not remain what they once were by nature.
	Either, if there were no evil qualities previously, but such qualities, you say, have grown around the matter from the first qualities having been changed by God,	If formerly the qualities were not evil, and you say through God's changing them, the first of such qualities came into existence with respect to Matter,
	God must be responsible for the evils, as having changed what were not evil qualities so that they now are evil.	it is plain that God is the cause of evil; since he changed qualities that were not evil ones into evil ones.
		VAL: You are disposed to forget the explanation of Valentinus. He said that Matter was disorderly and formless.
For either all of them, being evil, underwent a change for the better, or some of them being evil, and some not, the evil ones were not changed for the better; but the rest, as far as they were found superior, were changed by God for the sake of order.	'Or do you not think that God changed the evil qualities for the better, but say that the rest, and so many only as were neither good nor bad for the purpose of arranging the world, have been changed by God? '	God changed some elements of this for the better, but all the others were turbid and impure, since they were not useful for the process of making.
VAL. That is the opinion I held from the beginning.	'So I held from the beginning.'
		He had to leave, because they were in no way fitted to His purpose.It is from these, I think, that evil streams out.
		AD: It was only the good elements of matter that, as you say, God changed
ORTHOD. How, then, do you say it was that He left the qualities of evil as they were?	How then do you say that He has left the qualities of the bad as they were?	He left the evil ones alone?
		VAL: That is so.
		EUTR: The theory advanced by Valentinus and Valens is extremely difficult to follow, and unreasonable.  We must seek to learn
Was it that He was able to do away with them, or that, though He wished to do so, He was unable? For if you say that He was able, but disinclined to do so, He must be the author of these things; because, while He had power to bring evil to an end, He allowed it to remain as it was, especially when He had begun to work upon matter.  For if He had had nothing at all to do with matter, He would not have been the author of what He allowed to remain. But since He works upon a part of it, and leaves a part of it to itself, while He has power to change it for the better, I think He is the author of evil, since He left part of matter in its vileness.	Was it that He was able to annihilate them also, but had not the will; or that He had not the power? For if you say that He had the power but not the will, you must necessarily admit that He is responsible for them, because though He had power to bring evils to an end, He permitted them to remain as they were, especially at the time when He began to operate on matter. For if He had taken no care at all about matter, He would not have been responsible for what He permitted to remain. But when He began to operate on a certain portion of it, but left a portion as it was, though He had power to change that also for the better, it seems to me that He incurred the responsibility of causing it, as having left a portion of matter to be mischievous in the destruction of the part on which He operated.	whether although God had the power, He did not wish to destroy evil, or whether He did not have the power.  If your party say that He had the power, but did not wish to destroy it, you are bound to say that He is responsible for evil, because, when He had the power to blot evil out, He permitted it to remain as it was, especially when He began to work on Matter.  If he had taken no interest at all in Matter, He would not be the cause of what He permits to remain.  However since He left a part of it untouched, although He had the power to change it for the better, He is responsible for evil, for the reason He left a part of Matter in an evil condition, which resulted in the destruction of the part on which He worked.
He wrought then for the ruin of a part; and, in this respect, it seems to me that this part was chiefly injured by His arranging it in matter, so that it became partaker of evil. For before matter was put in order,	' 'Moreover in regard to this part it seems to me that the very greatest wrong has been done: this part, I mean, of matter which He so arranged that it now participates in evils. For if one were to examine the facts carefully, he would find that Matter	In fact, I think that the part which He made has received the greatest injury for its part since it desires evil.  For if anyone were to investigate the situation carefully, he would discover that now Matter .
	has now fallen into a worse condition than its former disorder.  For before it was arranged in order,	has suffered a more grievous misfortune than the first disorder.  Before it was divided,
it was without the perception of evil; but now each of its parts has the capacity of perceiving evil.	it might have had no sensation at all of evil; but now each of its parts becomes sensible of evils.	it had no perception of evil, but now each of its parts has that sense
Now, take an example in the case of man. Previously to becoming a living creature, he was insensible to evil; but from the time when he is fashioned by God into the form of man, he gains the perception of approaching evil.	'Now let me give you an example in the case of a man. For before he was fashioned and made a living creature by the Creator's skill, he had from his nature the advantage of not participating in any evil at all but from the time of his being made man by God, he also receives the sensation of approaching evil,
So this act of God, which you say was done for the benefit of matter, is found to have happened to it rather for the worse. But if you say that God was not able to stop evil, does the impossibility result from His being naturally weak, or from His being overcome by fear, and in subjection to some more powerful being?	and this, which you say has been done by God for the benefit of matter, is found rather to have been added to it for the worse.  But if you say that the reason why evils have not been made to cease was that God was not able to annihilate them, you will be asserting that God is deficient in power and the want of power will mean either that He is by nature weak, or that being overcome by fear He has been brought into subjection by some greater power.	So this, what you claim God did to benefit Matter, is actually found to have made it worse.  But you say that evil is still in existence because God is powerless to destroy it, you thereby assert that He is omnipotent.  The lack of power will be the result either of natural weakness, or of surrender to fear, and enslavement to someone stronger.
See which of these you would like to attribute to the almighty and good God.	If then you will dare to say that God is weak by nature, you seem to me to be in danger for your very salvation: but if through being overcome by fear from the greater power, the evils will be greater than God, as prevailing over the impulse of His will; which seems to me an absurd thing to say of God.	Above all, you thus affirm that evil is greater than God, since it overcomes the strength for His purpose.  I think it is wicked to say this about God!
		Moreover, will not these things which, according to the views of Valentinus,
	'For why will not rather these evils be gods, as being able according to your argument to overcome God, since we say that God is that which has the authority over all things?	are able to conquer God, really be gods - that is if we mean by God the One who has power over all things?
But, again, answer me about matter. Is matter simple or compound? For if matter be simple and uniform, and the universe compound, and composed of different substances, it is impossible to say that it is made of matter, because compound things cannot be composed of one pure and simple ingredient. For composition indicates the mixture of several simple things. But if, on the other hand, you say that matter is compound, it has been entirely composed of simple elements, and they were once each separately simple, and by their composition matter was produced; for compound things derive their composition from simple things. So there was once a time when matter did not exist— that is to say, before the combination of the simple elements. But if there was once a time when matter did not exist, and there was never a time when what is uncreated did not exist, then matter is not uncreated. And from this it follows that there are many things which are uncreated. For if God were uncreated, and the simple elements of which matter was composed were uncreated, the number of the uncreated would be more than two. But to omit inquiring what are the simple elements, matter or form— for this would be followed by many absurdities— let me ask, do you think that nothing that exists is contrary to itself?	'I wish, however, to ask you a few questions also about matter itself. So tell me now, whether matter was something simple or compound: for the diversity of its products brings me round to such a mode of examining this subject. Since if matter was simple and uniform, but the world compound, and composed out of different substances and mixtures, (it is impossible to say that it has been made out of matter, because compounds cannot be composed out of a single thing which has no qualities); for "compound" signifies a mixture of several simple things. 'But if on the other hand you should choose to say that matter is compound, you must of course say that it has been composed out of certain simple things. Now if it was composed out of simple things, those simple things once existed by themselves, and matter has come from their composition; whence also it is shown to be created. 'For if matter is compound, and compounds are constituted out of simples, there was once a time when matter did not exist, that is to say, before the simples came together. But if there was once a time when matter did not exist, but never a time when the uncreate did not exist, matter cannot be uncreate. Henceforward, however, there will be many uncreate things. For if God was uncreate, as well as the simple elements out of which matter was composed, the uncreate will not be two only. But is it your opinion that no existing thing is contrary to itself?'
VAL. I do.	'It is.'
ORTHOD. Yet water is contrary to fire,	'And is water contrary to fire? '
	'It appears to me contrary.'
and darkness to light, and heat to cold, and moisture to dryness.	'And in like manner darkness to light, and heat to cold, and also moist to dry? '
VAL. I think it is.	'I think it is so.'
ORTHOD. If, then, nothing that exists is contrary to itself, and these are contrary to one another, they will not be one and the same mat-ter— no, nor formed from one and the same matter. But, again, I wish to ask, do you think that the parts of a thing are not destructive of one another?	'Therefore if no existing thing is contrary to itself, (and these are contrary to each other) they will not be one and the same matter, nor yet from the same matter. I wish, however, to ask you again another question like this. Do you think that the parts of a thing are not destructive one of another? '
VAL. I do.	'I do.'
ORTHOD. And that fire and water, and the rest likewise, are parts of matter?	'And that fire and water, and the rest in like manner, are parts of matter? '
VAL. I hold them to be so.	'They are so.'
ORTHOD. Why, then, do you not think that water is destructive of fire, and light of darkness, and so on with the rest?	'Well then? Do you not think that water is destructive of fire, and light of darkness, and all the other similar cases? '
VAL. I do.	'I do think so.'
ORTHOD. Then, if parts of a thing are not destructive of one another, and these are found to be so, they will not be parts of the same thing. But if they are not parts of the same thing, they will not be parts of one and the same matter. And, indeed, they will not be matter either, because nothing that exists is destructive of itself. And this being the case with the contraries, it is shown that they are not matter. This is enough on the subject of matter.	'Therefore if the parts of a thing are not destructive one of another, while the parts of matter are destructive one of another, they will not be parts one of another: and if they are not parts one of another, they will not be parts of the same matter: nay more, they will not themselves he matter, because, according to the adversary's argument, no existing thing is destructive of itself. 'For nothing is contrary to itself; because it is the nature of contraries to be contrary to others. As for example white is not contrary to itself, but is said to be the contrary of black: and light is shown in like manner not to be contrary to itself, but appears to have that relation to darkness, and very many other things of course in the same way. 'If therefore there were also one kind of matter only, it would not be contrary to itself: but since such is the nature of contraries, it is proved that the one only kind of matter has no existence.'
Now we must come to the examination of evils, and must necessarily inquire into the evils among men. As to these, are they forms of the principle of evil, or parts of it? If forms, evil will not have a separate existence distinct from them, because the species are to be sought for in the forms, and underlie them. But if this is the case, evil has an origin. For its forms are shown to have an origin— such as murder, and adultery, and the like. But if you will have them to be parts of some principle of evil, and they have an origin, it also must have an origin. For those things whose parts have an origin, are of necessity originated likewise. For the whole consists of parts. And the whole will not exist if the parts do not, though there may be some parts, even if the whole be not there. Now there is nothing existing of which one part is originated, and another part not. But if I were even to grant this, then there was a time when evil was not complete, namely, before matter was wrought by God. And it attains completeness when man is produced by God; for man is the maker of the parts of evil. And from this it follows that the cause of evil being complete, is God the Creator, which it is impious to say. But if you say that evil is neither of the things supposed, but is the doing of something evil, you declare that it has an origin. For the doing of a thing makes the beginning of its existence. And besides this, you have nothing further to pronounce evil. For what other action have you to point out as such, except what happens among men? Now, it has been already shown that he who acts is not evil according to his being, but in accordance with his evil doing. Because there is nothing evil by nature, but it is by use that evil things become such.		DR: The origin of evil must be sought on more secure grounds, for if we say that evil is coeval with God, many wrong-headed ideas will follow in the wake of truth. Consequently, if evil does not come from either Matter or God, we must seek its origin.
Für unsere Verhandlung nun, o Freund, scheint mir genug geredet zu sein. Auch Dir aber meine ich sei nicht verborgen geblieben, dass ein jeder Mensch die Weise hat, den Nächsten leicht nicht anzuerkennen. Denn die vollkommene Untersuchung der Materie (vel der Substanzen) gibt deutlich die Ueberführung.  Daher wenn es Dir gefällig, gestatte auch mir ein fragendes Wort, der ich Weniges fragen will. Denn so scheint mir das Wahre klar gefunden zu werden, indem Dein Wort nicht vernichtet wird durch mein Fragen. Denn indem gleichmässig die Unterredung geschah von einem von uns Beiden, so wird die Wahrheit, wie sie ist, sich kund tun; denn es verbirgt sich oftmals die Wahrheit, indem sie nicht durch der Wahrheit gemässe Verhandlung erforscht wird.  Daher wünschte ich die gleiche Wiedergabe von Dir zu empfangen. Denn nachdem so sich das Grössere gezeigt hat, wird mit Sicherheit das Passende zu wählen einem Jeden klar sein. 2. Auch ich selbst aber will nicht, о Du, für mein Wort, dass es ohne Prüfung sein werde. Denn auch nicht in dem, was  was ich oben gesagt, wenn es auch entgegen ist , dem Gesuchten sage ich (?). Aber mit aller Willigkeit will ich, dass dies gefragt werde. Und Dich bitte ich mit aller Macht das Fragen festzuhalten (seil, die Verhandlung fortzuführen). Denn davon meine ich mir grossen Nutzen zu haben. Denn wenn mir die Sache klar erforscht ist, so wird mir an das Wahre mich zu halten, sondern durch genaue (ganze) Erforschung. Daher beginne nun dieses Wort (sive : Daher wohlan . . das Wort). Sagst Du, dass Gott gut sei? Ich sage, dass er gut sei. Gut aber ist, keinerlei Böses zu tun, wovon wir sagen, dass es böse sei? [Ich sage es.] Wie fragst Du in Betreff dieses Bösen, d. h. über Mord oder über Unzucht und Anderes dem  Aehnliches? Oder von jenem, wie viel nun denen, die dieses gewagt zu tun, durch das Gericht Gottes gebracht wird, was, während sie gerecht gestraft werden, böse zu sein scheint den das Gericht dafür Empfangenden, dass sie gewagt Böses zu tun. Wenn Du aber über das früher Gesagte geredet hast, so sage ich nicht,  dass Gott davon der Schöpfer sei, denn es scheint mir unvernünftig zu sein, dass es zu Gott nahe gebracht werde, da die offenbar sind, welche erwählt haben, solches zu tun. Wenn aber ein Wort zu sagen ist in Bezug auf das, was von Gott wegen der bösen Taten geschieht, so sage ich nicht von ihm, dass es böse ist, sondern gerecht. Denn er (seil, der Böse) muss gemäss der Gerechtigkeit, nachdem er Böses getan, ein gerechtes Gericht empfangen.  Von dem Gerechten aber sagt Niemand, dass es böse sei, ausser jenem allein, der es gut empfängt. Denn die gegenwärtigen Mörder von den Aeltesten das Gericht empfangend, sage ich, dass sie gut empfangen. Gutes empfangen sagt aber gegenüber Bösem. Denn es ist, einen jeden von den gerecht handelnden Männern . . , zu halten ungerecht ; aber wir as sagen nicht, dass dieses (dieser) böse sei. Denn auch ich selbst sage, dass in Wahrheit dieses gerecht ist. Aber über diese Fragen, von welchen Du zuvor geredet, ich habe oben über die Materien, o Du , dass Gott nicht ihr Schöpfer ist. — Was scheint Dir nun dieses Böse zu sein?  Denn über das so Böse, worüber wir fragten, habe ich das Urteil gegeben, indem ich durch den Begriff (Ao'yw) unterschied ; aber das, was es irgendwie sei, sagst Du noch nicht: ob gleich einer Substanz oder gleich einem Accidenz der Substanzen.  Denn wenn Du sagst, dass es gleich einer Substanz sei, irrst Du Dich mit dem Begriff (Xo'yw), wenn aber wie ein Accidenz, — So sage ich, dass es sei. Da (wenn) Du aber nun meine Frage trennen (scheiden) willst, wie sagst Du, dass dieses Accidenz sei, und wem und woher sage herzubringend mir deutlich. Denn wie nichts von dem Bösen nach dem Begriff der Substanz böse ist, habe ich oben in der Verhandlung gesagt, und Du, meine ich, erinnerst Dich dessen, wovon ich gesprochen, indem ich an die freie Wahl eines Jeden das Böse geknüpft.  Da Du aber nun willst, dass ich von vorne an, so gut ich es verstehe, über das Böse zu Dir rede, so werde ich wie es mir möglich sein wird, Dir klar das Erforschte sagen, so mich an die Verhandlung haltend (seil, die Verhandlung fortführend).
		AD: [If it has now become clear to you that Valentinus' views are contrary to sane reasoning, please accept the true explanation:]  Evil does not arise as part of the nature, essence or substance of being, but by means of free will.
ORTHOD. Well, then, the connection of these names with substance is owing to its accidents.	'Well then, if substance is a kind of concrete body, and this requires nothing in union with which it may begin to exist, and if evils are actions of some agent, and if actions do require something in union with which they begin to exist, evils cannot be substances.	DR: On the contrary, I maintain that evil does arise as part of the essence and substance of being.  The manner of its coming is 'accidental.'
		AD: Please explain clearly what you mean by the expression, "as part of the essence and substance of being."
		DR: All that the Law forbad I call evil, such as murder, adultery, theft, immorality, and whatever the Law forbids.
	And these names are attached to the substance in consequence of its accidents (συμβεβηκότων), which are not itself: for the substance is not murder, nor again adultery, or any of the like evils.  But just as the grammarian is named from grammar, and the rhetorician from rhetoric,	AD: All these things are of an 'accidental' nature.  Murder is not substance, nor again is adultery, nor are any of the similar evils.  But just as the grammarian is named for Grammar and the rhetorician from Rhetoric
	and the physician from the art of physic,
For a man is evil in consequence of his actions. For he is said to be evil, because he is the doer of evil.	though his substance is neither the art of physic nor yet rhetoric, nor grammar, but receives the name from its accidents(συμβεβηκότων), from which it seems fit to be so called, although it is neither one nor the other of them, in like manner it appears to me that the substance also acquires an additional name from what are thought to be evils, though it is neither of them.  'And in like manner if you imagine some other being in the mind as the cause of evils in men, I would have you consider that he also, inasmuch as he works in them and suggests the doing evil, is himself evil in consequence of what he does. For he too is said to be evil for this reason that he is the doer of evils. But the things which any one does are not himself, but his actions, from which he receives the name of being evil.	yet neither Rhetoric nor Grammar is substance, but it receives its name from those things which are 'accidental' to it, and from which it seems to be thus named, although it is none of them, so, it seems to me, the substance receives its name from which are considered to be evil results, though it is none of them.  The producer of evil results is called evil; yet what a man produces is not himself, but his actions, and it is from these that he receives the designation 'evil.'  ,
Now what a man does, is not the man himself, but his activity, and it is from his actions that he receives the title of evil. For if we were to say that he is that which he does, and he commits murders, adulteries, and such-like, he will be all these.	For if we were to say that he himself is what he does, and if he does murders and adulteries and thefts and all the like, then he himself is these: and if he is himself these, and these gain real existence at the time of being done, and in ceasing to be done cease to exist, and it is by men that they are done----then the men must be the makers of themselves and the causes of their own being and ceasing to be.	[Should we say that he is himself what he does, when he commits murders, adulteries, thefts, and all such like things, he will himself be these things.  Now if he is these things, and they have existence only when they are committed, but cease to exist when they are not committed; and furthermore if they are committed by men, men will be their own makers, and conversely, the cause of their own non- existence!]
	If then each man is evil in consequence of his actions, and if his actions receive a beginning of existence,	But if you affirm that these vices are his actions, then Man is held to be 'evil' because of what he does, and not because of what he is in substance.
But we said that a man is called evil from the accidents (συμβεβηκότων), pertaining to his substance, which are not the substance itself, as the physician from the art of physic.		We said that a human is called evil from things that are 'accidental' to his or her substance — things which are not the actual substance just as a craftman takes his name from his craft,
Now these things are produced by men. Men then will be the authors of them, and the causes of their existing or not existing
But if each man is evil in consequence of what he practises,		Now if Man is evil as a result of what he does,
and what he practises has an origin, he also made a beginning in evil, and evil too had a beginning. Now if this is the case, no one is without a beginning in evil, nor are evil things without an origin.	then that man also began to be evil, and these evils too had a beginning. And if this is so, a man will not be without a beginning in evil, nor evils un-originate, because we say that they originate with him.'	and what he does has a beginning of existence, then Man himself began to be evil, and these evil things also began to be; but if this is so, Man (was not originally evil, nor are evil things uncreated, for they prove to be created by him)
		DR. You claimed that evil is in conduct, and not in substance; but evil proves to have existence through substance. Please, then, explain more fully how evil is in conduct, and not in substance.
Ich sage zuerst, dass durch die Substanz nichts böse sei, sondern dass durch die Weise des Gebrauchs es böse genannt werde; und mir scheint von der Sache der Unzucht zu beginnen. Der Name der Unzucht ist der die Vereinigungen des männlichen und weiblichen Geschlechts anzeigende. Aber wenn Jemand Gemeinschaft pflegt mit seiner  Frau, wie es recht ist, der Kindererzeugung halber und der Nachfolge eines Geschlechts, so wird eine gute Vereinigung sein. Wenn aber wieder Jemand, nachdem er verlassen die gesetz- mässige Gemeinschaft, frevelt an fremder Ehe,  auf ein fremdes Lager steigend, der tut eine böse Tat. Die Gemeinschaft ist die gleiche, aber die Weise des Gebrauchs ist nicht die gleiche.  Denn jener bleibt der ächte Vater, dieser (sie) wiederum schafft einen unbekannten Erzeuger. Und der Hurerei Sache scheint mir dieselbe zu sein. Denn wer der Kindererzeugung halber Gemeinschaft pflegt mit dem Weibe, sündigt nicht, aber wer mit einem hurerischen Weibe Gemeinschaft pflegt der Wollust halber und nicht wegen Hinterlassung eines Geschlechts, sündigt, und tut nicht recht.  Die Vereinigung aber also ohne die Weise des Gebrauchs erfahren, ist nichts Böses ; dann aber wird sie böse, wenn die Weise deutlich sein wird. 3. Aber auch mit dem Totschlag verhalte es sich ebenso, sage ich. Denn wenn Jemand den in Unzucht Ergriffenen, nachdem er ihn dem nachdem er ihn dem Gesetz übergeben, töten will, ihm  Strafe vergeltend für das, was er getan, tut er nichts Böses. Wenn aber Jemand den, der nichts Verwerfliches begangen, töten sollte, wegen nichts Anderem, als der Wegnahme des Seinen, nämlich der Habe oder des Reichtums, der tut Böses. Es geschieht zwar dieselbe Handlung bei Beiden, aber die Weise der Handlung macht den Unterschied.  Dazu auch das Wegnehmen der Habe wird durch die Weise  des Nehmens böse. Denn wenn Jemand gibt mitteilend dem Andern von dem, das er hat, so tut Nehmende nichts Böses. Wenn aber wiederum Jemand nicht nach seinem Willen durch Zwang wegnimmt oder heimlich, der tut ein böses so Werk. Und zwar das Wegnehmen von Fremdem ist bei Beidem, aber die Weise des Nehmens macht dies böse oder gut.  Ebenso die Gottesverehrung wird böse oder gut durch die Weise. Denn wenn Jemand den wahren Gott ehrt, tut er ein gutes Werk; wenn er aber diesen lassend, den Nichtseienden ehrt, und die Elire des Besseren Holz oder Stein bringen will, handelt er unrecht. Der Name der Gottesverehrung ist der gleiche, aber die Weise des Gehrauchs ändert das Geschehende. Aber also wird auch Bilder oder Idole zu machen, obwohl es nicht schlecht ist der Substanz nach, durch die Weise des Gebrauchs böse. Denn wenn Jemand ein Idol macht, welches die Gestalt eines Menschen hat, nicht wegen der Kunst, noch indem er will durch das Bild des Nächsten das Abbild des Freundes sehen, sondern wegen der Verehrung und es wie Gott anzurufen, der tut ein böses Werk.  Und so macht die Weise des Tuns und die Absicht des Handelnden, dass es böse sei.		AD. (I affirm that at first there is nothing naturally bad; but that it is called bad according to the manner of its use. The term 'adultery' refers to the union of man and woman. d Now, if a man should have union with his wife for the procreation of children and the continuation of the race, such union is good; but if he forsakes and insults the lawful marriage by illicit union, he is guilty of a great wrong. The union itself is the same, but the circumstances of its use are not. The same thing can be said of unchastity in general. Sexual union, then considered apart from the circumstances of its use, is not evil. It becomes evil only when a wrongful use is apparent. I point out that it is the same with murder. Should a man desire the death of someone caught in adultery, demanding the punishment of his shameless act, he does no crime.  Yet, if a man kills someone who has done nothing illegal, on a mere pretext, or for the purpose of removing his household property — that is, his money or goods — he does wrong. The act is the same in both cases, but the circumstances of the act make the difference.  To this may be added the taking of money from someone, where it is the circumstances of the taking that make it bad. Should anyone, out of a desire to share, make a gift from his possessions, the recipient does no wrong in taking it, but  on the other hand were someone to seize it from another against his will, or secretly, he would do something evil, Taking what belongs to another is common to both parties,  but it is the circumstances of the taking that cause the latter to be called bad.  In the same way, the worship of God can become wrong by the circumstances of its performance. If a man worships the true God, he performs a good deed, but if he forsakes Him, and worships a god that does not exist, desiring to bestow the the honour due to the Almightly on objects of wood or stone, he does wrong. The act itself is indeed 'worship', but the conditions governing its conduct alter what is done.
Und damit ich nicht von diesem allein redend scheine die Zeit zu verbringen, gehe ich zu Anderem über. Siehe mir in Betreff des Eisens, wie der Gebrauch es bald gut bald böse zu sein zeigt. Denn wenn Jemand es nicht recht braucht, nämlich nicht zum Nützlichen, wie sei es zum Pflug die Erde zu pflügen, oder wieder zu etwas Anderem, was nützlich ist, sei es zur Pflanzung von Pflanzen oder zum Säen der Saat geeignet zu sein, sondern zum Schwert und Spiess, und soviel zur Anfeindung des Menschen as ausgedacht worden, der tut ein böses Werke. Von diesem sage ich, dass es von den Menschen getan werde. Denn die Handelnden selbst sehen wir selbst, von welchen als getan dieses sich zeigt.
ETAIR: Du aber nun, über das Böse geredet, auch zeigen wollend,  dass das Böse ist, und dass die Menschen dessen Täter sind, will ich ein ein wenig wiederum Dich fragen. Haben wohl die Menschen von sich selbst nehmend einen solchen Trieb, nämlich haben sie selbst diesen Gebrauch erfunden, oder sind sie so von Gott erschaffen, oder ist irgend ein Anderer wiederum, welcher sie zu solchem antreibt. Denn dass von Gott so der Mensch sei, halte ich nicht für möglich zu sagen.		DR. Well, as you brought the argument forward, endeavouring to prove how evil exists, and how humans are the makers of it, may I ask briefly whether they received the means of action from themselves — that is, whether they themselves were the discoverers of such use, or whether they were made such people by God, or again, whether there is someone else who impels humans to such actions?
ORTHO: Ich sage aber, dass der erste Mensch freien Willens geworden sei, So I say, says he, that man was made with a free-will, not as if there were already evil in existence, which he had the power of choosing if he wished, but on account of his capacity of obeying or disobeying God. For this was the meaning of the gift of Free Will. And man after his creation receives a commandment from God; and from this at once rises evil, for he does not obey the divine command; and this alone is evil, namely, disobedience, which had a beginning.		AD. I do not claim that humans were made people of such a kind by God; I believe that they possess free will, and that this supreme gift was conferred them by God. [All other things obey the Divine command out of necessity.  If you speak of deviating from the course, and obeys the Master by some compelling force.
Denn wenn Du den Himmel nennst: er steht tragend den Herrn, und überschreitet nicht den bestimmten Ort. Wenn Du aber auch über die Sonne reden willst : es vollendet auch sie den bestimmten «Lauf, nicht sich weigernd des Laufs, sondern mit einer gewissen Nötigung dienend dem Herrn. Und die Erde siehst Du ebenso gefestigt und vollendend das Wort des Befehlenden. So auch die Andern dienen gezwungen ihrem Schöpfer, indem kein Einziger von ihnen etwas Anderes tun kann, als das, wozu er geschaffen ist, es zu tun.		You also see the earth similarly fixed and carrying out the behests of Him who gave the orders. It is the same with the other created bodies: they are compelled to obey their Maker, and not one of them can do anything except that for which it was created.
Deshalb loben wir sie nicht, wenn sie so ihrem Herrn gehorchen, noch ist ihnen irgend eine grössere Hoffnung bewahrt, weil sie das Befohlene freiwillig getan. For man received power, and enslaved himself, not because he was overpowered by the irresistible tendencies of his nature, nor because the capacity with which he was gifted deprived him of what was better for him; for it was for the sake of this that I say he was endowed with it (but he received the power above mentioned), in order that he may obtain an addition to what he already possesses, which accrues to him from the Superior Being in consequence of his obedience, and is demanded as a debt from his Maker.  For I say that man was made not for destruction, but for better things.	.	Nevertheless, we do not compliment these bodies because they thus obey their Master, nor can they expect any future advancement on the grounds that their obedience to orders has been voluntary]. e But Man received the power to obey whom he would, and brought himself into subjection. He is not bound by the compulsion of nature, nor is he deprived of strength.  Consequently,  I claim that he is a free will agent in the interests of his future advancement — that he may receive from the Almighty something extra; something that is the reward of obedience, and which he begs as his due from his Maker. I believe that Man was made, not to suffer injury, but to achieve a higher position,
		If he has come into existence as one of the heavenly bodies or the like, and served God from compulsion, then he can no longer receive the reward that his exercise of free will merits. He will be but a passive instrument of the Creator...
For if he were made as any of the elements, or those things which render a similar service to God, he would cease to receive a reward befitting deliberate choice, and would be like an instrument of the maker. and it would be unreasonable for him to suffer blame for his wrong-doings, for the real author of them is the one by whom he is used.  But man did not understand better things, since he did not know the author (of his existence), but only the object for which he was made.  I say therefore that God, purposing thus to honour man, and to grant him an understanding of better things, has given him the power of being able to do what he wishes, and commends the employment of his power for better things; not that He deprives him again of free-will, but wishes to deprives him again of free-will, but wishes to point out the better way. For the power is present with him, and he receives the commandment; but God exhorts him to turn his power of choice to better things. For as a father exhorts his son, who has power to learn his lessons, to give more attention to them inasmuch as, while he points out this as the better course, he does not deprive his son of the power which he possessed, even if he be not inclined to learn willingly; so I do not think that God, while He urges on man to obey His commands, deprives him of the power of purposing and withholding obedience. For He points out the cause of His giving this advice, in that He does not deprive him of the power. But He gives commands, in order that man may be able to enjoy better things. For this is the consequence of obeying the commands of God. So that He does not give commands in order to take away the power which He has given, but in order that a better gift may be bestowed, as to one worthy of attaining greater things, in return for his having rendered obedience to God, while he had power to withhold it. I say that man was made with free-will, not as if there were already existing same evil, which he had the power of choosing if he wished, ... but that the power of obeying and disobeying God is the only cause. For this was the object to be obtained by free-will. And man after his creation receives a commandment from God, and from this at once rises evil; for he does not obey the divine command, and this alone is evil, namely, disobedience, which had a beginning. For no one has it in his power to say that it is without an origin, when its author had an origin. But you will be sure to ask whence arose this disobedience. It is clearly recorded in Holy Scripture, by which I am enabled to say that man was not made by God in this condition, but that he has come to it by some teaching. For man did not receive such a nature as this. For if it were the case that his nature was such, this would not have come upon him by teaching. Now one says in Holy Writ, that “man has learned (evil).” Jeremiah 13:23 I say, then, that disobedience to God is taught. For this alone is evil which is produced in opposition to the purpose of God, for man would not learn evil by itself. He, then, who teaches evil is the Serpent. For my part, I said that the beginning of evil was envy, and that it arose from man's being distinguished by God with higher honour. Now evil is disobedience to the commandment of God.
was wider den Willen Gottes geschieht. Denn nicht an sich selbst böse seiend lernt der Mensch. Der ihn lehrt, ist nun die Schlange, von Gott selbst geschaffen. Sie lehrt aber den Menschen, indem sie ihn abwendig machen will von dem Höchsten. 5. Wenn Du aber auch die Ursache willst wissen, Neid in Betreff des Menschen hat sie. Wenn Du aber auch nachforschest, woher der Neid deshalb, weil sie nicht so geehrt ward. Denn allein der Mensch hat nach dem Bild und 6 der Aehnlichkeit Gottes zu sein empfangen. Wenn Du aber deshalb sagst, dass Gott sei der Urheber des Bösen, so entfällst Du einem vernünftigen Gedanken. Denn wenn er jenem weggenommen, was er hatte, und es dem Menschen gegeben hätte, so wäre er in Wahrheit schuldig des Bösen Wenn er aber jenen erhielt, wie er war, aber den Menschen so machen wollte, ist jener schuldig, der neidet. 6. Denn wenn Jemand, der zwei Sclaven hat, den einen in der Arbeit erhält, den andern aber an Sohnesstatt macht, jener aber, neidisch geworden, den so vom Herrn Geehrten erschlägt, wird etwa der Herr schuld sein an jenem bösen Anschlag, während er ihm doch nichts genommen, nichts von jenem diesem gegeben? Frage, woher dem Teufel die Kenntnis des Bösen wird. XVHI. Aber auch darüber hast Du zu fragen (aut wirst Du fragen), woher, wenn Niemand böse war, der Schlange, welche man Teufel nennt, die Kenntnis des Bösen. Entgegen wird aber dies gut gesagt, dass der Teufel das als böse erkannte, Gotte ungehorsam zu sein, daher er auch den Menschen dazu anreizte.  Denn wenn ein Feind die Feindschaft verbirgt, heimlich mit Bösem umgeben wollend, jedoch nicht kennend die Weise des Bösen, wird er auf die Weise (dem gemäss) im Stande sein, das zu tun, was er sinnt, indem er einen der Heilkunst Kundigen fragt, welcher dem Nächsten kund getan hat — nämlich jenem, welchem dieser (seil, der Feind) Schaden antun wollte — diejenige Weise, auf welche er im Stande sein wird, gesund zu sein: sei es, dass so er eine Zeit bestimmt hat, in welcher allein der Speise zu gebrauchen, oder das Meiden vieler Speisen, oder nur diese Speise meidend. Jener aber sofort, sobald er es gehört , nachdem er wie mit Freundschaft gekommen und den Arzt verleumdet, als der Schädliches ihm befohlen , heisst ihn wiederum das Entgegengesetzte von dem tun, was jener (der Heilkundige) befohlen, und vertrauensvoll machend bereitete (mel. bereitet) er Schaden dem Menschen, vor diesem die Weise des Bösen nicht kennend, sondern von dem Befehl des Arztes es lernend. 4. So verstehe mir auch den Teufel, dass er zuerst eifersüchtig war, ferner alsdann, dass er nicht kannte die Weise, wie Böses zu tun. Denn nicht war zuvor Böses, von dem er hätte die Kenntnis nehmen können. Er wusste aber, dass von Gott ein Gesetz dem Menschen gegeben , welches nicht gestattete Speise zu essen von einem gewissen Baum; wie mir scheint, nicht wie wenn der Baum den Tod enthielte, sondern, dass er Gott ungehorsam war, schuld am Tode dem Menschen als der das getan, was Gott verboten.  Er überredete den Menschen, zu übertreten das Gebot Gottes, noch nicht wissend, welches ihr Böses ist; als er aber hernach Gott den Menschen tadelnd, in Betreff dessen, dass er sein Gebot übertreten, wahrnahm, und den den Lohn der Verurteilung Empfangenden, da erkannte er, wie das Böse ist, nicht aus einer früheren Substanz, sondern von der Drohung Gottes. 6. Wie wir nun einen Arzt nicht tadeln, welcher angesagt, auf welche Weise ein Mensch  gesund sein könne, wenn auch vielmehr der Feind, welcher früher nicht wusste, auf welche Weise möglich sei, jenem Schaden zu tun, vielmehr von der Ermahnung des Arztes es lernte.  Denn nicht gebührte es dem Kundigen, das Geeignete zu verbergen, denn ohne zu wissen hätte jener auch dies vielleicht gegeben, was er der Weisung des Arztes entnahm, und wird schuldig des von hier etwas Böses Empfangens, obschon alsdann noch nicht wissend, dass jener Leiden empfängt, so dass er nicht Strafe empfangen wird; und dem Feinde zwar wäre der Anschlag zugetroffen, das Gericht aber konnte er nicht empfangen wegen unvernünftiger Feindschaft, nicht die Feindschaft gestehend.  Auf die gleiche Weise sagen wir auch, dass der Teufel, Feind der Menschen geworden, noch nicht Kenntnis des Bösen hatte, sondern aus dem Gebot (es) erkannte, als Gott bedräute, dem Menschen kund tuend, dass er, wenn er gegen seinen Willen von dem Baum essen werde den Tod haben werde als Strafe. Denn wenn er nicht dem Menschen zuvor kund getan, dass er noch nicht will, dass er esse vom Baum, so hätte er vielleicht unwissentlich gegessen und hätte ein Ende gehaht auch des Lebens, sei es wie noch nicht im Stande zu ertragen die Frucht des Baumes, wie auch nicht ein Kind, noch mit Milch genährt, feste Speise empfangen kann,  sei es wieder gegen den Willen Gottes vom Baum genommen habend; und wären zwar die Anschläge der Schlange in Erfüllung gegangen nach Billigkeit Gericht zu empfangen, wegen unvernünftiger Feindschaft gegen den Menschen, da keine (nur) versuchte Sache klar der Strafe würdig ist. 8. Den Anfang zwar nun des Bösen nannte ich (meinerseits) den Neid, den Neid aber, weil grössere Ehre der Mensch von Gott empfing. Das Böse ist aber der Ungehorsam, von welchem in das Testament der Mensch gefallen, indem er übertrat das Gebot Gottes. Daher auch oftmals, wenn auch durchaus von Natur (durch die Substanz) kein Böses geschehend ist, sondern weil Gott nicht will, dass es sei. 9. Wann aber nun man beistimmen muss, (Böses) zu tun sei nur Gotte ungehorsam sein, lernte ich deutlich aus, dies sei das Böse. Denn es war einst eine Zeit, als Gott den früheren Menschen befahl, in das verheissene Land einzugehen, und da gehorchten sie nicht dem Befehl Gottes, wollten auch nicht der Verheissung geniessen; wieder aber nun da Gott nicht jenen Eingang gestattete, haben sie, welche übel dem Willen Gottes ungehorsam zu sein gelernt und gegen, den Willen Gottes hineingezogen, billig Strafe empfangen. Ebenso sagen auch wir, dass seiner Substanz nach nicht böse ist, < sondern > weil Gott nicht will dass es sei, und die Menschen gelehrt werden (es nicht) zu tun. Aber nun zu sagen, dass sofort, nachdem der Teufel geworden, er von Gott wisse, dass das Böse Gotte ungehorsam zu sein — denn Gotte ungehorsam sein ist das Böse — , scheint mir [nicht] gut. Denn nicht unvernünftig war er von Gott (scil, geschaffen), um nicht zu wissen, dass nicht gut ist, wider den Willen Gottes etwas zu tun. 11. Denn deshalb sage ich, werde er mit Recht gepeinigt, weil vernünftig von Gott geschaffen und das Wissen besitzend, dass das Böse ist, sich dem Willen Gottes zu widersetzen, er wagte dieses zu tun. Das Böse aber nenne ich den Ungehorsam ; nicht als ob ich sagte, irgend ein zuvor seiendes Element habe in Kenntnis der Teufel, sondern als wollend, dass etwas von dem Accidirenden geschehe. Ich sage daher, dass der Mensch mit Recht Strafe empfange ie für das, was er tut, denn mit eigenem Willen gibt er sich zum Lernen, er lässt aber ab vom Lernen, wenn er selbst will. Denn er hat die Macht zu wollen und nicht zu wollen. Es folgt aber, dass er auch tun kann, was er will. XIX. Und da nun, O Freund, Du sagst, dass Gott nicht der Schöpfer des Bösen sei, sagst aber, dass es getan wird der Wirkung nach vom Teufel und den ihm Folge Leistenden, die sich jenes Willen hingegeben haben ; daher, sagst du, würden sie auch mit Recht gestraft, da sie, obwohl vermögend seinen Willen zurückzuweisen, nicht wollen ; so will ich dich nun über ihn, den Teufel selbst, fragen. - Hat Gott ihn so geschaffen, oder hat er sich selbst zum Bösen gewandt, nachdem er zuvor nicht so gewesen ? — 2. Wenn er aber nun so so war von Gott, so gehörte es sich ihm nicht, Strafe zu empfangen, da er sich in der Natur bewahrte, wie ihn Gott erschaffen.  Denn welche etwas gegen den Willen Gottes tun, von denen sagen wir, dass sie billig gestraft und gerichtet werden, weil sie nicht so blieben, wie Gott wollte, dass sie seien. 3. Wenn aber von Gottes Jemand gut geworden ist, er jedoch seinen willen auf das Böse verkehrte, nachdem er das Bessere gelassen, so empfange er mit Recht Strafe für das, was er gewagt zu tun, denn als nicht ein solcher von Gott geworden, sagte ich oben mit den Worten, dass ihm Neid die Ursache einer solchen Wahl war. Und da Du wiederum bittest zu sprechen, beginne ich die Rede. Ich sage, dass der Teufel nicht von Natur ein von Gott Abspenstiger war, sondern eine gewisse zum Besseren dienende Kraft. Da er aber neidisch geworden auf den Menschen, sage ich, dass er durch seine eigene Wahl Teufel geworden sei, denn verlassend den Gehorsam Gottes, fing er an ungehorsam zu sein und fing an zu lehren Gotte Widersprechendes, indem er verlassen das Bessere und so zu sagen ein Deserteur von Gott geworden. Es gibt mir aber Zeugnis, der ich so rede, ein heiliges Wort, einen Deserteur und eine Schlange nennt es ihn, indem es spricht: durch den Befehl aber tötete er die abgefallene Schlange. Denn es war der Gerechtigkeit gemäss das Wort Gottes den Teufel tötend , da er die Macht zu seiner Bekämpfung den irdischen Menschen gab. Denn nicht hätte ihn einen Rebellen die heilige Schrift genannt, wenn er ein solcher geblieben wäre, wie er von Gott geschaffen worden, und nicht, verlassend, was er war, zu dem, was er nicht war, übergegangen wäre. Denn der Name Rebell zeigt an, dass er nicht dasselbe jetzt ist, was er zuvor war. 6. Dadurch zeigt es sich auch, dass er nicht ungeschaffen ist. Denn wenn er ungeschaffen wäre, so wäre er nicht abgefallen von seiner Natur. Wenn ich aber auch einräume, dass dies möglich sei, muss man, da jetzt der Teufel böse ist, sagen , dass einst eine Zeit war , wo der Teufel nicht böse also aber auch, dass sich als nicht substanziell das Böse erweist. Denn die Substanz dieselbe bleibend, erleidet nicht einst böse zu sein, einst wiederum gut. Wenn aber auch der Teufel geschaffen war, doch nicht so von Gott geschaffen, sondern er verkehrte sich selbst zum Schlimmeren vom Besseren, das heisst vom Gehorsam zum Ungehorsam. Sage, ob Gott nicht gewusst habe , dass er ein solcher würde, und deshalb ihn schuf, oder indem er Kenntnis des Zukünftigen hatte? Denn wenn er zuvor wusste, welche Schuld werde der Teufel haben? Wenn er aber nicht kannte den Abfall des Teufels vom Besseren, wird er unschuldig sein, aber geringer als die heidnischen Wahrsager. — 8. Dass irgend ein Nichtwissen bei Gott ist, das zu sagen scheint mir ungeziemend zu sein ; denn fremd ist dies der göttlichen Natur. Aber dass wiederum, wenn er, Kenntnis des Zukünftigen habend, den Teufel geschaffen, er schuldig ist den Teufel geschaffen, er schuldig ist am Bösen, ebenso auch sage ich, dass dieses ungeziemend sei. 9. Ich sage aber gleichwohl die Ursache aus, wegen welcher Gott, das Zukünftige voraus wissend, diesen geschaffen; ich sage aber dies, dass Gott, guten Wesens seiend, nicht wollte, dass seine Wohltat verborgen bleibe, und er deshalb nicht bekannt werde.  Deswegen hat, — sowohl vorauswissend, dass der Teufel abfallen werde , wie die Menschen sündigen machen und übertreten sein Gebot, wegen dessen vielmehr dem Menschen der freie Wille gezeigt ward, Gott ihn geschaffen, damit das Ueberschwängliche seiner Güte den Menschen bekannt würde, wegen der Darreichung des Erlasses  willen sie jenem ungehorsam waren, gehorchten aber dem geschaffenen Knecht; deshalb sage ich, dass Gott, obwohl er sehr wohl zuvor wusste, dass er so werden den Teufel geschaffen, damit er seine Güte den Menschen zeige , auf dass der Mensch die Gnade Gottes erkenne, damit sein Vielfältiges die Menschen erkennen.  Denn wenn nicht wäre die entgegengesetzte Composition des Bösen, so würde das Gute, dass es gut ist, nicht erkennbar sein, indem wir allein hiervon Kenntnis hätten, nicht wissend den Unterschied des Besseren. Dazu wäre aber auch der freie Wille dem Menschen genommen, indem er nur wüsste mit Gehorsam allein zu dienen ; es wäre aber gleich auch das Ende aller Menschen, indem nicht unterschieden wäre die Wahl eines Jeden, und es würde, der heute böse ist, dieselbe Gabe beanspruchen.
		He who used Man was also the cause of these things. Did Man know nothing more than that with which he was born, he would never know the greater Good. Consequently I say that God honoured Man by providing him with the means of deliberate choice and a knowledge of the greater Good, and that he gave him the power to do what he wishes.