Against the Manichaeans

Essay by Rev. John of Damascus's "Against the Manichaeans" consists of 84 chapters and is written in the form of a dialogue between a Christian and a Manichaean. The treatise sets out in detail and refutes the Manichaean heresy (dualism): - Rev. John asserts that God is one, omnipotent and omnigood, and He is the only beginning of all things. There cannot be two equivalent, opposing principles; - God created the world out of nothing, and everything that He created was “very good.” Matter is not evil by nature, and the human body is not a prison, but a good creation of God; - evil has no independent essence or eternal beginning. It is the absence, perversion or lack of good, a consequence of the free will of rational beings who have turned away from God; - in contrast to Manichaean docetism, the author insists on the reality of the human nature of Christ, His true body, suffering and death. This is essential to the redemption and salvation of man; - man was created as a unity of soul and body, and both of these parts are good creations of God, destined for salvation and resurrection. Using logical arguments, references to Holy Scripture and patristic tradition, St. John of Damascus not only refutes heretical positions, but also reveals the Orthodox teaching about God the Creator, Providence, human nature and Christ the Savior. Particular attention is paid to the consideration of the problem of the origin of evil and related issues of predestination and foreknowledge of God and human free will. * Title of the work in Greek: τοῦ Δαμασκηνοῦ κατὰ Μανιχαίων. * Title of the work in Latin: Сontra Manichaeos. Contents 1. Purpose of the interview 2. One principle of existence or two? 3. In how many senses is the word “beginning” used? 4. Three hypostases, one beginning 5. In terms of time, it is impossible for beginnings to be without beginning 6. So, He did not transform and when did He then create the creature and become the Creator? 7. In the spatial sense, it is impossible for two to be without beginning 8. Three hypostases, but one God, not three 9. In dignity and power there will not be two principles 10. In the sense of natural and essential cause there will not be two principles 11. Is multi-principal beautiful, stable and orderly, or unity of command? 12. If there are two beginningless principles, each rejoices and enjoys its own 13. Do your two beginnings communicate with each other, or are they completely incommunicable? 14. Isn’t evil seen in existing things? 15. Good and evil are understood in two ways 16. The beginning of every thing is one or two, say, the beginning and cause of the soul is one or two? 17. Is the beginning of the movement of each of the beings one or two? 18. Why is God without beginning? 19. Why one beginning and not two? 20. If there are two beginnings, then this is a plurality of beginnings. 21. Is God beginningless in all respects, or in some ways yes, and in others no? 22. The two principles will either be in each other, or limited by place and not without beginning 23. Is being opposite to being? 24. What is matter - life or decay and death, movement and moving or immobility and movable, light or darkness? 25. Are the limits of light full of light or not? 26. What did the fruits of evil do or what did they suffer when they entered the world? 27. However, are these two principles destructive to each other? 28. God and matter 29. If, according to the divine apostle, there is no communication between light and darkness (2 Cor. 6:14), how did the merging of soul and body happen? 30. Is your beginningless evil, which you call matter, incorporeal, or a body, or something complex? 31. Are your two principles completely incommunicable, or do they have something in common and differ in others? 32. What is the evil of the devil? 33. Why did God allow the devil to fight against people? 34. Why did God, foreseeing that the devil would be angry, create him? 35. If existence is good for all beings, as given by the good God, then is existence good for the devil? 36. God does not betray justice because of imaginary compassion 37. God names those who do not yet exist as existing, and contemplates and judges the future as already accomplished 38. We recognize as good what God wants 39. If the sun and moon arose as ships to transport the particle that matter stole from God, then before that there was neither sun nor moon 40. If, in your opinion, sorrow is evil, then pleasure and pleasure are good 41. If you impute to God universal destruction in the flood, then much more impute eternal punishment to Him 42. To produce from one’s own essence is not creation, and from non-existents - creation 43. Transformation is a transition from one opposite to another 44. God does not punish anyone in the future, but everyone makes himself receptive to the communion of God 45. If God is good, then why does he punish the Evil One in the future century, and not destroy him? 46. ​​The seraphim are further removed from God than the Evil One is from the seraphim 47. Just as every light shines from the sun, so every good is determined from the will of God 48. God knows evil as good 49. If evil is evil, then the punishment that drives it out is good 50. If evil is eternal and creates, and can, and exists, and acts, where does it get this from? 51. Nature itself presupposes one beginning 52. If good is an essence, then evil is non-essential 53. Where did evil get its movement? 54. How did the evil desire the good to the extreme? 55. How did lifeless and senseless evil give birth to its works? 56. How do you say that everything came from the essence of your principles? 57. Evil, if for others it is evil, but for itself good, constitutes itself, and is not entirely evil 58. It is impossible for the same thing in the same respect to be good and evil 59. Attraction to what does not exist and should not be is evil 60. Evil is twofold 61. If a substance is without beginning, has not arisen, incorporeal, without quality, invisible, and the same Good God, and everything came from their essence, why is what happens from them visible? 62. What is destructive, or corruption, or perishable? 63. So what is a substance - destroyer, decay or perishable? 64. Everything that happens happens either for the sake of good or for the sake of imaginary good 65. When is a prophet misled by God? 66. The substance that you call evil, and darkness, and corruption, and death, beginningless and eternal, was it an essence or an incidental one? 67. Listen to what the damned Manichaeans, darkened about the light, the lips of the devil, say 68. Was the substance that was initially at rest good or evil? 69. Why did God, foreseeing that the devil in the future would turn from good into evil and lose good, and remain in the non-existence of good, which is evil, created him? 70. Why does the Lord say: it would have been better for that person not to have been born (Matt. 26:24)? 71. God always provides good things to the devil, but he does not want to accept 72. It is not in our power to receive existence, but to be good is in ours 73. God is not only good, but also righteous, and sees everything that has not yet come into existence as existing 74. Let us not judge God - for we do not know His plan 75. God, being by nature good and compassionate, does not want sin 76. What is the Almighty? 77. Just as the essence of God is incomprehensible, so is His will and providence 78. God’s providence consists in the fact that He foresees everything 79. God, foreseeing what we will do voluntarily, predetermines what does not depend on us 80. God predetermined everything according to His foreknowledge 81. Good is the best order 82. God is not the cause of evil 83. The natural order is that strive for glory from God 84. Bodily pleasure, taken according to natural use and the law of the Creator, is good 85. The unnatural comes from the natural at the instigation of the devil 86. The two greatest ways to help us 87. Everything hidden is bad, but what is revealed is light Orthodox: Since we have come together for conversation and reflection, I will ask you: what is our goal? Manichaean: To practice reasoning about faith in order to find the truth. P: But what is truth? M.: Recognition and recognition of existence. P: Is a lie the opposite of the truth? M.: Because truth is knowledge of things that exist, and falsehood is knowledge of things that don’t exist. P: You answered incorrectly that truth is the knowledge of things that exist, and falsehood is the knowledge of things that do not exist, because things that do not exist cannot be known. M.: What then is a lie? P: So, if truth is knowledge of things, and falsehood is ignorance of things, then tell me: is knowledge possession? P: If knowledge is possession, then ignorance, of course, is deprivation. M.: And ignorance is possession. P: Does the particle “not” indicate deprivation or presence and possession? M.: “No” shows deprivation. P: Do we call something devoid of being non-existent? P: So, if ignorance is the lack of knowledge, and “not” indicates deprivation, then ignorance, therefore, is deprivation, and not possession. P: Therefore, if truth is knowledge, it is clear that it is possession, and if falsehood is ignorance, then, according to true reasoning, it is deprivation. So, it turns out that truth is possession, and falsehood is deprivation, and truth is existence, and falsehood is non-existence. P: Is evil true or false? P: So, evil is not a being, but a deprivation of a being and a non-existence, and is opposite to good as a deprivation of possession. But let's return to our subject. 2. One principle of beings or two? P: Are you saying that there is one principle of beings, or two? M.: Two: one good and one evil - and the good is called the good tree, containing and creating all good, which cannot give the fruit of evil, and the evil is darkness, corruption, the evil tree, the receptacle of all evil and filth, which cannot give the fruit of good. P: Do these two principles communicate with each other or not? M.: They do not communicate at all and are opposite to each other. P: Do they exist in each other, with each other or separately? M.: They were initially separated, each within its own limits. P: How did they get mixed up now? M.: The good was in its place, in all goodness and bliss, and matter, that is, evil, was lifeless, motionless, ugly, disgusting darkness, insensible for many centuries. Then the substance rebelled against itself, and its fruits fought with each other, and when some fled and others pursued, they reached the borders of the light, and seeing the light, they desired its beauty and stopped fighting with each other, and, conspiring, attacked the light. And the Good One sent power from himself, and in the battle the leaders of darkness devoured a particle of light. For the Good One allowed his power to be taken away from him, fearing that they might take possession of his place. He did this in order to overcome evil with the help of the particle he gave. And so there was a mixture of good and evil: for from a particle of good souls arose, and from the essence of evil - bodies. 3. In how many senses is the word “beginning” used? P: In how many senses is the word “beginning” used? P.: That which has no beginning is beginningless, and the word “beginning” is polysemantic - after all, it means many things. For they speak of a “beginning” in time, just as we call the sunrise the beginning of the day or speak of the beginning of the year. The beginning is also used in the sense of place, as we say “the beginning of the path,” or that Pishon originates in paradise. They also talk about the “beginning” in dignity and power, just as we call the king the beginning of his subjects. “Beginning” is also called that which precedes by nature, as with numbers. For if there are two, then there will certainly be one, and if there is one, there will not necessarily be two - after all, two are one and one, and one is one, and not two. Therefore, one is the beginning of two. It says “beginning” and in order, as first the dignity of the reader, then the subdeacon, then the deacon, then the presbyter, and then the bishop. It is said “beginning” in the sense of cause, and in three ways: either about a natural cause, like the beginning of a son and father, or about a creative one, like the beginning of a creation, the Creator, or about an imitative one, like what is depicted – the beginning of an image 1 . So, since beginning has so many meanings, this is what is truly called beginningless—what is called beginningless in every sense. So how do you affirm two beginningless principles? M.: In every sense - because only in this way will they be beginningless. P: But your initial statement is false, and if you start with a lie, you will end up with a bad end. P: Having said “two,” you began with a number, but two is not a beginning - for two have a different beginning, one. Therefore, when discussing the beginning, name one beginning, so that the beginning is perfect: after all, by nature, the beginning of the binary is one. So, if there are two beginnings, then where is the beginning that precedes by nature, that is, one? 4. Three hypostases, one beginning M: So you are talking about three hypostases, and how do you say that we must start from one? P: Although I speak of three hypostases, I affirm a single beginning: for the Father is the beginning of the Son and the Spirit, not in time, but in reason. For the Word and the Spirit are from the Father, although not after the Father. Because just as light comes from fire, and fire does not precede light in time (after all, it is impossible for fire not to emit light), but fire is the beginning and cause of the light emanating from it, so the Father is the beginning and cause of the Word and the Spirit, since the Word and the Spirit are from the Father, but does not precede them in time: for it is impossible for the Father to be from the Son or the Word from the Spirit. So, I confess the one principle of the Father as the natural cause of the Word and the Spirit. But you don’t say that evil comes from good or good from evil. 5. In terms of time, it is impossible for beginnings to be beginningless P.: And in terms of time it is impossible for your beginnings to be without beginning, we will make sure in this way. That which has not begun to be is unchanged. For if it has changed, it is not entirely without beginning. For what changes from incorporeal to body, or from formless to species, or from motionless to movement, or from calm and silence to disturbance, begins to be what it was not before. And that which turns from the beginningless into the beginning is not without beginning - for the one who receives the beginning and the beginning is not without beginning. M.: What then? Was not your God transformed by giving birth to the Son and bringing forth the Spirit? P.: In no way, because I do not say: “Not being first a Father, He later became a Father,” but He always had His Word from Himself and His Spirit, emanating from Him through His Word. 6. This means that He did not transform and when did He then create creation and become the Creator? M.: So He did not transform and when did He then create creation and become the Creator? P: Because He did not create creation from His essence, but from non-existence into being by will. M: So, when He wanted to create a creature, He did not transform by desiring what He did not desire before? P.: In no way - after all, He did not want it later, not wanting it before, but always wanted the creation to arise at the time determined by Him. 7. In a spatial sense, it is impossible for two to be without beginning. P: And that in the spatial sense it is impossible for two to be without beginning, it is clear from this: two or are in each other, but it is impossible for light and darkness to be in each other, because the presence of light dispels darkness, or each is in its own place. Thus, each is limited in its own place, and the end of the place of one becomes the beginning of the place of another. But it is impossible for light not to mix with darkness if there is no barrier that would prevent them from dissolving into each other. So, it is necessary that there be light and its place, darkness and its place, and a barrier that fences off and determines the place of each - and there will be not two beginnings, but five. 8. Three hypostases, but one God, not three M.: So, your God, and His Son and His Spirit, don’t they fall under the same reasoning? P.: No way. After all, I do not say that the Divine exists in space - for It is immeasurable and immense - and I do not say that the three hypostases are separated from each other, but just as a thought, born from the mind, does not come out of it, and is not separated, but is born from it and abides in it, so the Son and the Spirit are from the Father and in Him. For They are one essence and inseparable hypostases, because the powers of the mind are inseparable from it itself. For the Word and the Spirit are supernaturally both the inseparable powers of the Father and perfect hypostases, because it is fitting that the powers of a supernatural God should be supernaturally hypostases. Therefore, although there are three hypostases, there is one God, not three. For the mind, and the thought, and his spirit are one mind, but: not three minds, just like the stem of a rose, and a flower, and a fragrance - each of them is called a rose and is a rose, but they are not counted together as three roses, but one rose and root, and stem, and flower. 9. There will be no two principles according to dignity and power And that there will not be two principles in terms of dignity and power, let us be convinced. If there are only two principles, God and matter, then either one would rule and rule the other, or no one would rule over anyone, or there would be something else that obeys the dominance of the two principles, coeternal with them, and there would be not only two, but more - two ruling ones and still other subordinates - or, if the subordinates are not coeternal with the principles, then there was once a time when they were not principles. M: Then won't the same thing happen to your God? After all, either the creature subordinate to Him is coeternal with Him, or there was a time when He did not rule. P.: No, not so: for creation is not coeternal with Him, but He has always been and will be the Lord, ruling over being, bringing entities from non-existence into being by His Word and the Spirit of His mouth. And His Word is not pronounceable, but essential and hypostatic, 2 and His mouth is not a bodily organ, nor His Spirit a dissipating breath, but everything is presubstantial with the Presubstantial, even though we think of what is above us through what is accessible to us. 10. In the sense of natural and essential cause there will not be two principles P: But even in the sense of a natural and essential cause there will not be your two principles - for the Father is the Parent of the consubstantial Son, the Eternal of the Eternal, the Incorporeal of the Incorporeal. So, if your two principles are the beginning of everything that exists as a natural cause, then everything with you will be consubstantial and coeternal with your principles. And if co-eternal, then it is unchangeable, and opposite, and incommunicable, and in command, and not under command, and everything will dominate, and not be enslaved. If your two principles are the principles of existence by creative causality, then souls are not from the essence of God, and bodies are not from the essence of matter, but were brought into existence from non-existence, and matter did not fight with light, and did not steal a part from it, and did not create souls from it. And how did non-communicating opposites come together in the creation of a single world? Or how did the Evil One create the body, and the Good One the soul, and they formed a single being, man? If, in the sense of imitation, as the depicted prototype is the cause of the image, then your principles are other worlds, in the likeness of which the world arose. For beings have not one form, nor one or two forms, but without number. And how are these innumerable species images of your two principles? Thus, your opinion about two principles is impossible and unfounded. After all, ask a crowd of children inexperienced in evil: is the beginning two or one? And they will say that one is the beginning of every number. O you who are infants and more foolish than infants! 11. Is plurality of command beautiful, stable and orderly, or unity of command? P.: Answer us this question: is plurality of command beautiful, stable and orderly, or unity of command? It is clear to everyone that plurality of command is a lack of command, fraught with disturbances, that it is the cause of war, and battle, and evil, and decay, and unity of command is strong and legal and is the cause of peace, order, tranquility, justice and growth for the better. So, if, in your opinion, there are two beginningless beginnings, then the beginning of beings is many beginnings, and the beginning of everything is evil, and thus there is one beginning, evil. And how can you say that two principles that you yourself invented have nothing in common? After all, if both exist, and one essence is a beginningless and eternal beginning, and the other too, then they are not completely devoid of commonality. For they have a commonality in being and in essence, and in the fact that [each] is a beginningless and eternal beginning - and it has been proven that your reasoning is false in all respects. 12. If there are two beginningless beginnings, each rejoices and enjoys its P: And again: if there are two beginningless principles, each rejoices and delights in its own, and considers its composition to be good - after all, for each, what constitutes its essence is good. Therefore, both your Good and your Evil, each rejoices in himself and enjoys his own, and considers his own good. So who decided that one is good and the other is evil? And he is more likely to be a god, greater than both of these, because the lesser is judged by the greater and the subordinate to those in authority. 13. Do your two principles communicate with each other, or are they completely incommunicable? P: Tell me this: do your two principles communicate with each other, or are they completely incommunicable? M.: They were completely uncommunicative, for one was in the fullness of good, and the other in the fullness of evil - but after that a confusion occurred. P: For now, let’s wait to talk about mixing. First, explain to us: is the opposite in being of existing or non-existent? M.: Real evil is the opposite of real good. P.: I did not ask whether they are opposite in good and evil, but in being. After all, existing things are not completely opposite - for by their very being they have commonality with each other, and non-existence is the opposite of existing. So if evil is completely opposite to good, then evil does not exist. So evil is a lack of being and is called evil - and if good is an essence, then evil is immaterial, otherwise they are not completely opposite. 14. Isn’t evil seen in existing things? M.: Then [tell me]: isn’t evil seen in those who exist? P.: Perfect evil is not seen in those who exist - for the truly existing God and the cause of being is not evil, nor anything that has arisen as it arose is evil, but the cause of everything is good, and everything that arises from it is good. And everything that exists was brought by her from non-existence into being, and everything is beautiful and very good (Gen. 1:31). Evil is nothing more than the loss and voluntary deprivation of what God has given to the rational nature, just as poverty is the loss of wealth: for wealth is the acquisition of existing things - gold, silver, gems, various clothes, servants and maidservants, cattle, arable land and the like, each of which is an essence. Therefore, the one who has acquired this is called wealthy 3 - as if “multi-essential” 4, whose property consists of many essences 5. Partial poverty is a partial loss of these things, and complete poverty is complete deprivation, just as the integrity of the body is a good, and the loss of one member is a partial evil, non-existent, but deprivation of the existing. It is seen or thought of in existence not as an existing thing, but as something lost, just as, for example, the eye and vision exist and exist, and blindness is not an essence, but the loss of an existing eye. It is considered in the existing and whole body not as an existing thing, but as the deprivation of an existing eye. And thus the gradual increase in the absence of members is called an increase in evil - for evil does not exist, but the absence of what is lost in a crippled body is called and considered not as existing, but as not existing, not as possession, but as deprivation. Likewise, evil, that is, sin, is a voluntary deprivation of the benefits given to rational nature by God - for among the dumb and soulless one cannot speak of voluntariness, but only among the rational. So, evil is the abuse of natural capabilities. For if we use the powers given to our soul by God for the purpose for which we received them, that is, according to the law of the Giver, then this is good. If we use them not for what we received, but against the law of the Giver, this is evil: neither the powers themselves nor their use are evil, but a bad way of using them contrary to the law of the God who gave them. For if God is good, His natural law, which is from Jehovah, is also good. Disobedience to him is the deprivation of the law that we had, like lust, and anger, and deed, and action, and the thought before them is not evil, but good if we use them for what we received, according to the law of the One who gave - they are not evil [themselves], but their use is not according to the law of the One who gave. For if we use food, drink, sleep and the like to support life, each of them is good. And if we use love and lust for God, who is the only thing desired by nature, and for our neighbor according to the law of God, this is good. And if we use intercourse with our wives for procreation according to the law given to nature by God, it is good, but if we use lust for someone else’s against the law of God, this is evil. For God said: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house, nor his wife, nor anything that he has” (Ex. 20:17). Fornication is bad not because of the union, but because of the union with another woman. Vanity is bad not because of the love of glory, but because the love of glory is not from God. Hatred and anger are good when they are directed against those who hinder the salvation of the soul and its union with God through obedience, and against those who lead away from God, that is, against the devil and his servants. For it is said: Have I not hated those who hate You, O Lord, and have I not given up for Your enemies? I hate them with complete hatred; They are my enemies (Ps. 139:21–22). And the holy martyrs were angry at the tyrants, justifiably angry. And if I become angry at my own thoughts that separate me from God, good. If someone deprives me of salvation, it is good to be angry and hate me, and if he upsets me in worldly things and benefits me by depriving me of something material, I would rather love him than hate him. Murder is evil - for only God belongs to separate the soul from the body, for He united, but if I kill at the command of God, it is good - for everything that is from the Good is good. So, it is bad to desire to seize what is not ours, but God’s. Condemnation is evil - for judgment belongs only to God, and it is bad to assign Divine dignity to those who are not given by God to judge. Vanity and pride are evil - for only God deserves exaltation and glory. So evil is nothing more than the unnatural and illegal use of natural possibilities, which is not an essence, but our behavior. 15. Good and evil are understood in two ways For you should know that both good and evil are understood in two ways - because what is actually called good is what is given from what is good by the nature of God. Just as every light is illuminated by the sun or fire, so every good has its existence from the boundless and incomprehensible abyss of goodness, and everything that is from God is good truly and in its own sense. But good is not actually, but in a figurative sense and according to our custom, that which seems pleasant to our feelings and desires, which for the time being delights, then bears bitter fruits, which occurs against the law of the Creator and seems to be good, which is not good, but actually evil. And evil in the same way - for what is actually called evil is what happens against the law of the Creator. Not exactly, but according to our custom, what is called evil is something that is painful and painful for our feelings, something that now brings suffering, and then the fruit of salvation and eternal joy. 16. The beginning of every thing is one or two, say, the beginning and cause of the soul is one or two? But tell me: the beginning of every thing is one or two, say, the beginning and cause of the soul is one or two? M.: Alone. After all, if there are two, then how can the same thing come from two opposites? After all, those who are completely opposite do not have a common action - for how can an immaterial soul arise from immateriality and matter? Or how did the opposites produce the same thing without conspiring? After all, by nature, opposites have no communication. P: Well said. And each of the existing ones has one beginning? P: Is being the beginning of your two beginnings, or are two beginnings the essence of the beginning of being? P: If being is the beginning of your two beginnings, then you get one beginning, not two. For if being is the beginning of being, then [they] are in a single beginning - after all, I am not talking about being something, that is, good or evil, but about being itself as such. So, if being the path is the beginning of your two beginnings, then there is one beginning, not two. If your principles are the essence of being, then there will be two opposite principles for one and the same thing. For just as a simple essence, being one, is capable of taking on various qualities, and in accordance with this they speak of many essences, so simply being is one, although, contemplated in various things, it gives its name to many beings as a derivative. So, I determine that opposites have absolutely no community of action, that being is not from two principles, much less opposite, but from one. For being is not the cause of existing things - after all, being did not exist before existing things. Because what would it be contemplated in? But being, contemplated in the originless Existence, arose in Him and from Him, as from a cause. So, there is one beginning of being, and there is no opposite to it. 17. Is the beginning of the movement of each of the beings one or two? And again: the beginning of the movement of each of the existing ones is one or two - existent, temporal, spatial and real (existent - for the emergence of each, temporal - from what time did it begin, spatial - from what place did that which begins from the place begin, real - from what action does that which is put into action: say, the first appearance of man, and from what time did he appear, and from what place did he begin to move, for example, to walk, and the beginning of the action of walking)? P: That’s right – it’s impossible for there to be two beginnings of one existence. P: Can this be seen in each of the existing things, or not? M.: In each of all things. P.: What is seen in each of all will be seen in all together - for example, what each person has, all of humanity has, like life and the ability to reason. And what each essence has, also has a common essence, like self-existence and being not in another. In the same way, if each of the existing things arose from one beginning, then all existing things arose from one beginning, and not from two, and there will not be two beginnings, but one. 18. Why is God without beginning? M.: Why is God without beginning? P: Because what does not exist has no existence from itself. Therefore, what does not have being from itself, how can it come to be from itself? This means that it is necessary for something that does not exist to receive being from something that exists, and the first giver of being, which has being from itself, is always without beginning. 19. Why one beginning and not two? M.: Why one beginning, and not two? P: Because the duality comes from the unity as a product of the unity, and the unity is the beginning of the duality, and the unity, of course, comes before the duality, and because the beginning of every thing is one, and if each of the existing things has one beginning, then all of them will have one beginning - for the judgment applicable to each of the existing ones will be applicable to all. 20. If there are two beginnings, then this is multiple beginnings And again: if there are two principles, then this is a plurality of principles, if a plurality of principles is indignation, if disturbance is the beginning of beings, then the beginning of beings is evil - for indignation is evil. So it is fitting that God should be and possess more than all that is said and thought. So, what is more - to divinely create essences from non-existents or to deal with matter humanly with the help of construction, or rather, carpentry? M.: Of course, to create from non-existent things. P: Therefore, it is fitting for God to create essences from non-existents, and there was no substance, but God created it. 21. Is God beginningless in all respects, or yes in some respects and not in others? M.: Is God beginningless in all respects, or in some ways yes, and in others no? P: If He is not beginningless in all respects, then He is both beginningless and not without beginning. If He is beginningless in all respects, He is beginningless in truth and in nature. And the beginningless is limitless, for the end is one of the types of the beginning. So, everything that has a beginning, by its nature also has an end, and everything that has an end also has a beginning. And the angels, therefore, having a beginning, by their own nature also have an end, although by the grace of God they begin to be again and are renewed. For just as a motionless body that has begun to move begins from a place (I am talking about circular motion), and having reached the place from which it began, it makes a revolution and closes the circle, but again begins to move, and receives a new beginning of movement, and so remains moving as long as the one who commands it to move wants it, so the angels, in their life movement reaching the natural end of their existence, [again] begin life movement, until again, by the order of the Creator, they stop moving. For they always receive being, vital and intelligible movement from God, although they do not have it from themselves. And just as a wheel set in motion moves and stops - and if it has eternal motion, then it moves forever, having a movement not from itself - so the angels, having being not from themselves, move insofar as they are moved by the Creator; however, if He does not move, they stop moving. So whoever has a beginning must have an end, and whoever has an end must have a beginning. And by nature, the beginningless is beginningless in all respects, in reason, and time, and place, and power. 22. Two principles will either be in each other, or limited by place and not without beginning So, the two [beginnings] will either be in each other, or limited by place and not without beginning. Then how are there light and darkness in each other? After all, light destroys darkness. If there are no boundaries of light and boundaries of darkness, then neither light is limitless, since it is not everywhere, nor is darkness. And they are not entirely beginningless, having a spatial beginning. For it is impossible for light and darkness not to mix at all, unless there is some kind of barrier and mediastinum. After all, if we light a lamp at night, the space around the lamp will be lighter, and at a short distance it will be darker, until the light disappears completely and there will be complete darkness without any admixture of light. For either darkness was originally mixed with light, and they are not completely opposite and incommunicable, or something else was originally the mediastinum separating them, and there are no longer two principles, but three. That which is by nature does not change, and that which changes is not natural. So, if light and darkness are by nature incommunicable, how did they then come into communication? How did good and evil come into one being, man? After all, if they came to an agreement, then they communicated with each other - for an agreement is a common decision. And neither the good one remained purely and completely good, nor the evil one, but both changed. But what changes is not without beginning, and is not God - for God, foreseeing what is in our will, determines everything that is not in ours 6 . And again: is being the opposite of being or is being the opposite of non-being? P: Then it will turn out that one of your completely opposite principles is, and the other is not. 23. Is being the opposite of being? And again: is being the opposite of being? M.: To be kind and to be evil are opposites. P: This means that they coexist and are co-realized by one and the same thing. How are they opposite? M.: What does not exist cannot be named - for it must be, and then it must be named. So how is non-existence the opposite of being? After all, opposites must first be, and then be opposites, and then be called them - for that which is not something is not named. P.: Having said “non-existent”, did you name it or not? M.: I named it in a negative, not an affirmative sense. P: Affirmation means possession, and denial means deprivation? P: Possession is the opposite of deprivation? P: So, non-existence is the opposite of being as deprivation - possession? P: Is “evil” said in the sense of deprivation or possession? P: And “Good” in the sense of deprivation or possession? P: So, evil is not exactly the opposite of good - after all, possession is not the opposite of possession. M.: Isn’t illness the opposite of health? P.: Yes, but as a lack of possession and a lack of integrity. P.: So evil will rather be deprivation and the opposite of good, just like deprivation of possession, because evil is nothing more than the deprivation of good, and perfect evil is complete deprivation of good. Therefore, evil, as the deprivation of natural possession, we call non-existent rather than existing. 24. What is matter - life or decay and death, movement and moving or immobility and movable, light or darkness? What do you think substance is - life, or decay and death, movement and the moving, or immobility and the movable, light or darkness? M: Corruption and death, immobility and immobility, darkness and not light. P: Then how did it produce fruit if it is decaying? How did life begin? After all, corruption does not live, does not have life and does not give life - for if someone does not have something, how can he give? And how, being motionless, it began to move and reached the boundaries of light? Who gave it life and movement? If he is Good, then he is not good and not wise - not good, because he revived and set in motion evil, not wise and not knowledgeable, because he brought wars and worries to himself, and stirred up a resting and inactive evil against himself - after all, he became the culprit of disturbances and disasters. And if not God, then someone else, and not two, but three, because what you don’t have cannot be acquired from yourself. M.: But the substance had life and movement in the possibility. P: If it potentially had life and movement, then it was potentially good. M.: Life and the movement of evil are not good, but evil. P: That which passes from possibility into action is changeable and has a beginning, and is not without beginning. And if it had life and movement in potentiality, then it acquired action subsequently; if its life and movement were evil, then it was evil in potentiality, and not in action, and evil will not be without beginning. If his life and movement are good, then from evil it has turned into good. M.: So what? Isn't the decay of one the emergence of the other? P.: It is not disintegration that becomes creation, but this latter is produced by God, created by the command of God from non-existent into existence, being changeable, for it began with transformation. After all, to go from non-existence to being is transformation - and that whose existence began with transformation is transformable and changeable. So, matter, being changeable, is revived by the command of God, perishes and is revived again - so that it is not corruption that produces the coming into being, but God’s command vivifies and creates that which comes into being. 25. Are the limits of light full of light or not? But tell me this: are the limits of light full of light or not? M.: It is clear to everyone that they are filled with light. P: Are light and darkness receptive to each other, or impervious? P: This means that they are what they are not by nature - after all, what is inherent by nature does not change, and by nature life is impervious to death. Then how did the darkness communicate with the light and not dissipate? Further, was the place of light full of light and goodness, or not? P: Then how did the darkness fit in? After all, a vessel with a capacity of a medimn will not hold two, that is, a vessel that holds one modium will not fit two modiums. 26. What did the fruits of evil do or what did they suffer when they entered the world? Then, what did the fruits of evil do or what did they suffer when they entered the limits of the light? M.: They saw the light and admired it, and clung to it, and loved it. P: Oh, dark and senseless! Is darkness blind or enlightened? P.: How can a blind man see, or how can something ultimately evil admire and love good? 27. However, are these two principles destructive to each other? However, are these two principles destructive to each other? P: Then not only is evil corruption, but also Good. M.: Evil is decay, and Good is life. P: So, evil destroys the Good and has no existence, and the Good revives evil, and evil will receive existence, and the Good will perish. So, as you said, matter is evil, corruption and death. This means that evil, if for others it is evil, but for itself good, then it constitutes itself, and is not entirely evil, not entirely corruption - after all, being in agreement with itself, in this it will not be evil. If it is entirely evil and entirely corruptible, then it will be self-destructive and deprived of existence. But tell us the essence of the co-dissolution you mentioned. M.: There were, as I said, God and matter, each within its own limits, the Good - God, life, light, movement, knowledge, thinking and all good, and matter - evil, corruption, darkness, death in complete rest and inaction. Then, after many centuries, matter rose up against itself and its fruits against each other, and then some fled, others pursued, and there were, as I said, God and matter, that is, two principles, and the soul is a particle of light, and the body is a creation of darkness and matter. And the mixing happened like this. Each of them was in parts, and the Good One was one-part, and the Evil One was three-part. Then the evil one moved in a disorderly onslaught from his borders and came to the boundaries of the Good One, and the Good One, having recognized it, produced from himself a force called the Mother of Life, and the Mother of Life produced the First Man (I call the First Man the five elements, which are air, wind, light, water and fire). So, having put on this, he went out and fought against the darkness. And the leaders of darkness devoured part of his armor, which is the soul - they grabbed the First Man, and he, tormented by them in the darkness, cried out to the Good, and he produced another force called the Living Spirit. And he came down and gave his right hand to the First Man, and brought him out. But below he left the part that the rulers devoured, that is, the soul, because souls arose from a part of the Good, and bodies from the essence of evil. 29. If, according to the divine apostle, there is no communication between light and darkness (2 Cor. 6:14), how did the merging of soul and body happen? P.: If, according to the divine apostle, there is no communication between light and darkness (2 Cor. 6:14), how did the merging of soul and body happen? And experience itself, which is stronger than vain words, teaches. Has darkness entered the confines of light and not dissipated? And again: how did darkness fit within the confines of light? And one more thing: if the Good One was wise, why didn’t he foresee the attack of the Evil One and first strengthen himself and his place? After all, if he was not wise and foresighted, then he is stupid - but how do you call a stupid person Good? And again: if all the darkness entered the limits of the light, its place remained empty - and if part of it, then how did the part defeat the one who was sent by the Good One to fight it? After all, he who sends the weakest to fight the stronger is not wise. Or the Good One is weak, and the Evil One is stronger. And again: if the Good One voluntarily gave up a part of himself, that is, his soul, then he who gave up the good to the evil is not Good. How did he himself give up his soul to the Evil One? [How will he] judge those who are enslaved to evil? After all, they will tell him: you yourself gave us away, there is no judgment. And if against his will the evil chiefs stole a part of him, then he is weaker and more ignorant than them, firstly, because he lost a part of himself, and secondly, because he was unable to take away what was stolen from him - after all, if he failed from the very beginning, then he will not be able to do so after that. And how, having captured the leaders of evil, he crucified them and made heaven from their flesh, mountains from bones, but did not capture his stolen part? And thus the court is also destroyed. After all, then the sinners are innocent - for if he himself could not return a part of himself, how can a subservient soul not sin and be innocent? And if in the end the Good One binds the evil, he will receive back the soul in perfection, and the person will not be punished. And one more thing: if evil for the soul comes from the body, then the soul is innocent. And again; a lying dead body does not sin. So, evil does not come from the body, but from the soul. 30. Is your beginningless evil, which you call matter, incorporeal or a body, or something complex? Tell us, O Manichaeans, is your beginningless evil, which you call matter, incorporeal, or a body, or something complex? And if it is incorporeal, then how can it be a substance? After all, matter is not incorporeal. But you may say: it is incorporeal, but it created the body. Then answer: did it create from its essence, or from something that does not exist? And if you say “from your essence,” it is not true. After all, a body cannot come from an incorporeal essence - for what is by nature does not change, and the essence will not turn from incorporeal to body - just as from body to incorporeal, neither from rational to irrational, nor from irrational to rational. For the essential quality is immovable, but the transforming and changing is transformed according to incidental signs, arising and disappearing without the destruction of the subject. If you say “from something that does not exist,” then answer us why, being evil and incorporeal, he did not create a mixture of evil ones, and why did he not create souls that were evil by nature, just as the body, in your opinion, was evil by nature, why did he merge a particle of good with his own evil? After all, it was not the Good One who did this - which means that he is not completely evil, but also has a good part. This is what happens if you say he is incorporeal. If evil is a body, then how did it come into motion? After all, every body in itself is devoid of will and dead. So how did it start moving? Who gave him the movement? Good? Then he is not good, or wise and not a seer, since he has accomplished evil. If you say that evil is complex, know that everything complex easily disintegrates, and it is necessary that first there be simple [components] from which the complex is formed, just as it is necessary that first there be resin on its own and wax on its own, and then the composition into a resin wax takes place. So there will be two principles of evil, not one. 31. Are your two principles completely incommunicable, or do they have something in common and differ in others? So, tell me, Manichaeans: are your two principles completely incommunicable, or do they have something in common and differ in others? And if they are completely uncommunicative, then one is there and the other is not. If they are communicated by existence, as essence and incidental attribute, then one has existence in the other - for the incidental attribute does not exist in itself, just as color cannot exist outside the body. But the body is the essence, and the color is an incidental attribute, and it appears and disappears without destroying the essence - when the color changes, the body remains the same. So, name any essence and any adjunct attribute - if both are essences, then know that the essence is not different from the essence, and the essence is not opposite to the essence except through an adventitious attribute. If there is Good and there is Evil, and each of them is an eternal, unchanging, effective, creative essence, then both of them are one in essence, but differ in quality. And one more thing: we see that the elements and times, heaven and earth, and the sea are always the same, and night and day, the movement of the sun, and the moon, and the stars, and showers, and the products of the earth are intelligently and harmoniously ordered and distributed. So, if there are two principles that are opposite to each other, then how can everything happen successfully if they do not agree with each other in a friendly manner? If matter destroyed itself, how did it move? If it was moving towards its own destruction, how did it reach the limits of the world? If matter gravitates downward, and its natural place is lower and darker, then how did it come out of its own nature in order to come to the limits of light? Darkness is blind: how then did it see the light? If matter is disordered and unreasonable, how can it have superiors? And how can one fight against something that has order and meaning? And even to gain the upper hand, so as to seize something from the wise and not be captured? If the Good God was unable to keep the substance from moving into its limits except by allowing a particle of it to be stolen, then the Evil One is stronger, and the Good One is a mastermind. And how can he be Good or God who uses cunning and not strength? That which is always as it is is truth, and truth is good. The beginningless is unchangeable. So, if a substance is without beginning, then it is unchangeable, always remaining as it is: but if it is always as it is, then it is truth, and if it is truth, then it is good. If a substance is transformed, then either from good to evil, and before being good, then became evil, or from evil to good, and before being evil, then became good - because the transformation leads to the opposite. The eternal essence is unchangeable - for it did not come into existence from something that does not exist, but for one whose existence is not from development, the essence is unchangeable. So, God, being good and eternal, does not suffer transformation, but is always good, and what He creates is good - for it is impossible for evil to arise from good - but it is changeable, because He brings it into existence from non-existence. Thus, rational beings allow transformation due to being brought into being from non-existent, but have free will because they are rational. By their own will, they remain the same as they arose, that is, good, slaves who know the Creator and are obedient to Him, which is inherent in created nature - for it is good to remain within the limits of one’s own nature. So, by his own will, man turned, desiring great things, but not in a good way - for it is a great thing to be God, but it is not good for one who is not God to be ungrateful to the Creator and to transgress his own nature, and to want to be what it is impossible for him to become - for it is impossible for one who is not without beginning to be God or for one who has begun to be without beginning. So the search for the wrong leads to the loss of what is available. P.: In rebellion against the Creator. Therefore, God gave him existence, so that it would not seem that He was afraid of the rebellion of a slave, and in order to teach us to act kindly even towards the evil. After all, He not only created him, but also made him the head of the world, and if he wants to become good, He will accept him and bless him. Therefore, although He could destroy him, He did not destroy him, but endures his folly, benevolently and unenviously providing him with the existence that belongs to Him. And for him to become good, it depends not only on God, but also on himself - after all, what happens forcibly is not good or virtue. 33. Why did God allow the devil to fight against people? If you say: why did He allow him to fight against people, I will answer that for the benefit - for many will be crowned through this. If you say that many are perishing, I will answer that just as the devil himself managed to become evil without outside influence by his own decision (which for him is the worst accusation), so a person could become evil on his own and without an instigator, and it would be a worse sin for him - for he who sins at the instigation of another is worthy of greater forgiveness and condescension than from himself. For he who has sinned on his own account is inexcusable, just as the one who follows virtue on his own merits deserves greater praise. Therefore, the devil, having sinned on his own, remained unrepentant, and man, who sinned not on his own, but under the pressure of the devil, came to repentance and was awarded renewal and remission of sins. So being is a good and a gift of God. 34. Why did God, foreseeing that the devil would be angry, create him? M.: Why did God, foreseeing that the devil would be angry, create him? P: He created it out of abundance of goodness. For he said: “If this one is evil and loses all the benefits given to him, then I will completely deprive him of the benefit and make him non-existent? No way. But even if he himself is angry, I will not deprive him of My communion, but will give him one good, My communion through being, so that even against his will he will participate in My good through being.” For no one holds and binds things in existence except God - for existence is the good and gift of God. 35. If existence is good for all beings, as given by the good God, then is existence good for the devil? M.: The existence of those who exist is from the good God: therefore, if for all those who exist existence is good, as given by the good God, then existence is good for the devil. P: All things that exist received their existence from God. Everything that God has given to everyone is good, for whatever a good person gives is good. And evil is nothing more than the loss of goods, that is, those given by God. So in those who have at least existence from God, good is partly present, as if as a last echo. So, being is good, and good being is better. For health is perfect existence, being in illness is partial evil and corruption - for it is not perfect non-existence, but partial existence and partial non-existence. Non-existence is complete evil, for what is completely non-existent is complete corruption and non-existence. Therefore, being and good being are good and from God, and from good to become evil depends on the will of the one who becomes. So, God, out of the abundance of goodness, gave good to the evil, being and good being. 36. God does not betray justice because of imaginary compassion You impute to us, O Manichaeans, why God, foreseeing that the devil would be evil, created him, and we have proven in detail that, according to the natural sense of justice, He acted well by creating him - for according to the natural sense, it is better to at least somehow be and, by reason of being, to partake of the good. For being itself is from God, the only ever-bearing, good and Giver of goods - and that which is from good, of course, is good. If you say that it would be better for him not to appear than to appear and endure endless punishment, we will say that this punishment is nothing more than the fire of lust for evil and sin and the fire of unsatisfied lust. For those who invariably remain in evil do not desire God, but evil, and there will no longer be the action of evil and sin. After all, [in eternity] we neither eat, nor drink, nor dress, nor marry, nor become rich, and envy has no power, and no form of sin. Therefore, lusting and not having the object of desire, they are burned by lust, as if by fire. And those who desire the good, that is, the one God, who exists and ever-present, and those who achieve Him, rejoice in accordance with their lust, according to which they achieve what they desire. So, true good is good by nature - at least somehow joining the good by being itself. And what seems good is not good by nature, but evil. It is not the business of the righteous and good to prefer the pleasure of the creature to the pleasure of the Creator and one’s own will to the will of the Creator, and to prefer what seems good to us, which turns out to be rather evil, to what is good by nature. But [it was better] for him to arise and have at least the slightest part of the true good, than because of evil, that is, unrighteous aspirations and sorrow, to lose even that smallest part of the good. For God does not judge by our unreasonable judgment, but according to what is truly good and righteous, does not follow our passions and does not betray justice because of imaginary compassion, which is truly partiality 7 . 37. God names those who do not yet exist as existing, and contemplates and judges the future as already accomplished And again: God names those who do not yet exist as existing, and contemplates and judges the future as already accomplished. So, just as a judge fairly punishes someone who has already sinned - and if he does not punish, he will be unjust - and it is not he himself who is the cause of the sin or punishment of the person being punished, but the choice of the sinner, so God, seeing the future as already accomplished, judged that he should arise, and if he became evil, he would be punished by Him. Therefore, He created him and made him good - he himself, by his own choice, became evil and became the author of punishment for himself, or rather, he punishes himself, coveting what is not. And that it was not God’s foreknowledge that was the reason that the devil became evil, it is clear - after all, a doctor who foresees a future illness is not the cause of the illness, but the cause of the illness is disorder, and the doctor’s foresight is a sign of learning, and the reason for the foresight is that this should happen. And that this is so, says the apostle: calling things that do not exist as though they exist (Rom. 4:17). And you need to know that as soon as the soul leaves the body, then it remains unchanged, whether it is attracted to good or evil. 38. We recognize as good what God wants In all these things we recognize as good what God wants - for just as light is determined by the sun, so good is determined by God. So, everything that the Good One wants is good, and good is what He wants. God is the judge, and we are not the judges of God. So why do we judge Him? Is God afraid, frightened and timid? A fearing God would not be God. 39. If the sun and moon arose as ships to transport a particle that matter stole from God, then before that there was neither sun nor moon If the sun and moon arose as ships to transport the particle that matter had stolen from God, then before that there was neither sun nor moon, and man was in darkness. 40. If, in your opinion, sorrow is evil, then pleasure and pleasure are good If, in your opinion, sorrow is evil, then pleasure and pleasure are, of course, good, and if so, then fornication, and gluttony, and everything that delights and pleases the performer is good, and what depresses, abstinence, fasting, vigil and the like is evil. 41. If you impute to God universal destruction in the flood, much more impute to Him eternal punishment If you impute to God the universal destruction in the flood, and the burning of the Sodomites, and the drowning of Pharaoh, when He punished them for the sake of benefit, then much more impute eternal punishment to Him. 42. To produce from one’s own essence is not creation, and from non-existents is creation To produce from one's own essence is not creation, and from non-existents is creation. So, if evil creates, then it translates from non-existents, and the body is no longer from substance - but if from substance, that is, from the essence of evil, then if evil is without beginning, it will certainly be both immortal and unchangeable - for what has begun does not cease and does not transform - and if evil is immutable, then the body from its essence will be incorruptible and unchangeable. Then whose was the corruption and evil? After all, corruption, of course, destroys something, otherwise it is not corruption. And if the good endures, then the Good also suffers, and how will he be completely good? Destroyed by corruption, the Good One will pass into non-existence. If it destroyed itself, then it collapsed and died, and it no longer exists. If he destroyed partly the good, and partly himself, then in whose nature the part is corruptible, the whole nature is corruptible - after all, it is impossible for one and the same nature to be both corruptible and incorruptible. For if we call the human body, a part of man, perishable, and the soul incorruptible, then they are not of the same nature. For the soul, although it lives in the body, is not a body, but is incorporeal - so the soul is of one nature, and the body of another, and not in one and the same nature is one part perishable and the other incorruptible, but one nature of man is perishable, and the other is incorruptible. And neither the soul is from a beginningless essence - after all, it is transformable - nor the body, because it is transformable and perishable. And a person is called one-natured not because the soul and body are of the same nature, but because all people equally have soul and body, and each has two natures. 43. Transformation is a transition from one opposite to another Transformation is a transition from one opposite to another, from non-existence to being, or from existing to non-existence, or from virtue to vice, that is, from natural possession to deprivation of it. Virtue is the fulfillment of God's law, but God's law is His will - for no one commands what he does not want - but God's will is good, unchangeable and always the same. So good is a thing that exists, just like virtue (for virtue is good), and evil is not a thing that exists, but a voluntary disobedience and abolition of a thing that exists, that is, the law of God, which is gradually realized in action and ceases with the cessation of action. 44. God does not punish anyone in the future, but everyone makes himself receptive to the communion of God You should also know that God does not punish anyone in the future, but everyone makes himself receptive to the communion of God. The participation of God is pleasure, and non-participation is punishment, but here God sends temptations not by punishing, but by nurturing and healing evil, so that we recognize Him and turn and achieve His goodness. The Lord God opened my ear (Isa. 50:5). 45. If God is good, then why in the next century does he punish the Evil One and not destroy him? M: If He is good, then why in the next century does He punish the Evil One and not destroy him? P: God is good, but also just: therefore, since He is good, He created the good things that He created. Therefore, just as it was fair that His future good creations, which would not only preserve the good given to them, but also increase it, should arise and be awarded perfect good and eternal pleasure, it was also fair that those future His good creations, which would not preserve the good given to them, but voluntarily deviate towards evil through the loss of goods, should also arise and be deprived of eternal pleasure. 46. ​​Seraphim are further removed from God than the Evil One is from the seraphim The seraphim are further removed from God than the Evil One is from the seraphim. Therefore, if the devil had not arisen, the one who was before him would be worse than everyone else and, in comparison with those who were before him, would be evil, and we would say: why did God, knowing that he would be like this, create him? In exactly the same way about who is before this, until we get to the seraphim themselves. And often we see some most deplorable thing and think that there is nothing more deplorable, and then we see another, even worse one. For if we consider something to be the extreme evil that we have seen, we think that it cannot be worse. 47. Just as every light shines from the sun, so every good is determined from the will of God So, God created everything very good (Gen. 1:31), each according to its nature, as He wanted - for He is not subject to the law, but what He wants is good, and not what we judge. For we are not judges of God, but just as every light shines from the sun, that is, fire, so every good is determined from the will of God. For if you say that God did good here and bad here, why He did this and why He didn’t do that, you are a judge of God, and greater than Him, and wiser. Therefore, as God, He has the power to create what He wants, and He has the power to reveal to us what reasons He wants for what He does, and what reasons He wants to hide. Each of the intelligent good beings that arose either by their own will remained in goodness, as they were created, or by their own will they transformed and moved away from goodness and lost it. For good is the best order, preserving for everyone what is characteristic of his nature - and the same thing is virtue - and violation of order, that is, disorder, is evil. Everything that exists, insofar as it exists, is good and from the Good, and to the extent that it is devoid of good, it is not good and does not exist. After all, the lifeless, because it has not received life from the Good, is lifeless, as deprived of life, and similarly, the insensitive and dumb, because they have received it, are good. 48. God knows evil as good God knows evil as good, just as He knows fornication as attraction, and friendship, and union. And even the causes of evil are for Him beneficent powers: often chosen vessels were born from fornication. 49. If evil is evil, then the punishment that drives it out is good If evil is evil, then the punishment that drives it out is good. For evil is fornication, and not chastity; after all, punishment is not evil, but to make oneself worthy of punishment. 50. If evil is eternal and creates, and can exist, and acts, where does it come from? If evil is eternal and creates, and can exist, and acts, where does it come from? Either from good, or for good it is all from evil, or for both from a different reason, because evil is also realized in the good, and because He turns both evil and deprivation of Himself to good. For friendship, being good, allows fornication to appear good, because in a good way even things that do not exist are jealous to be. For they say that God is not, by superior negation 8 . 51. Nature itself presupposes one beginning And that nature itself presupposes one beginning is explained by the counting, which begins not with two, but with one. So, if the beginning of counting is one, then the beginning of beings is one. 52. If good is an essence, then evil is non-essential If evil is completely incommunicable with good, and good is a being, then evil is not a being: for two beings are communicated by being. If good is an essence, then evil is non-essential, for two essences have in common that they are essences. 53. Where did evil get its movement? If evil is initially motionless, then motion is good, and motionlessness is evil. So where did evil get its movement? Life is good and movement, and has always been and is in good, and the Good was and is alive. Death, as you say, is evil, and corruption, and mortification, and, moreover, non-existence. But evil was death, according to you. Therefore, just as the Good is alive and life, evil is death, and mortification, and mortification. So where did it come to life and the nomination come from? If from oneself, then life comes from evil, which is unthinkable - for corruption does not give life. If from good, then the good that was the cause of life and movement for evil is not good. And why, foreseeing the evil that would come from him, did he revive him? 54. How did the evil desire the good to the extreme? Evil, inasmuch as it is evil, is incommunicable, and opposite, and hostile to good, and the desire for good is good. So how did the evil desire the good to the extreme? 55. How did lifeless and senseless evil give birth to its works? Evil is motionless and decays rather than arises. So how did lifeless and unfeeling evil give birth to its works? And how does it perceive good and the products of good? 56. How do you say that everything came from the essence of your principles? That which came from the essence of the beginningless and uncreated is beginningless and uncreated. So how do you say that everything came from the essence of your beginnings? After all, if everything is from their essence, then all these are beginningless beginnings and nothing [more]. If they are creations, then they are not from their essence. 57. Evil, if for others it is evil, but for itself good, constitutes itself, and is not entirely evil Evil is corruption and death. Then evil, if for others it is evil, but for itself good, constitutes itself, and is not entirely evil - for it constitutes itself and to that extent is not evil. If it is entirely evil, then it is evil for itself, and self-destructs and does not exist. If, in the corruption of some, the emergence of others occurs, then it is not corruption that causes the emergence, but goodness, due to the excess of goodness, even from the corruption of one makes the emergence of another. For the substance subordinate to the Good, created by Him, is good - after all, in the beginning He brought everything from non-existent into being. 58. It is impossible for the same thing in the same respect to be good and evil It is impossible for the same thing in one and the same relation to be good and evil, and for the same force to be the disintegration and emergence of the same thing in the same relation, neither self-power nor self-disintegration. So, evil itself is neither existing nor good, it is not creative and cannot create existing or good - and good in which it turns out to be perfect makes it a perfect good, and in what is partial - partial, and that in which it is not at all does not exist and is called complete evil. 59. Attraction to what does not exist and should not be is evil Fornication, since it is attraction, friendship and union, is good, and since it is an attraction to the unlawful and forbidden, it is evil, for what is not commanded, but forbidden, does not exist, as it should not exist. Therefore, the attraction to what does not exist and should not be is evil. Evil is twofold. True evil is, as it were, a falling away of natural properties. For God created man upright, but people indulged in many thoughts (Eccl. 7:29). Another evil is the sensual, like constraint in temptation, for the name of evil is general. After all, it means two things: sometimes it means the lack of virtue, and sometimes it means joy, that is, what is desired. After all, fornication is nothing more than a lack of chastity and bad use - because instead of loving his own vessel, that is, his wife, and merging with her, he loves and merges with someone else’s. Unbelief, instead of believing and loving God by nature, believes in a non-existent God. So, evil lies in using things that do not exist as if they exist, not giving each one his own, but for each one his own is what God has determined for him. What is proper for God is the glory and honor due to Him as the Creator, and what is proper for creatures is the measure that the Giver of existence has determined for each. But it is in our power to either use what God has given us for what He gave it for, and in our power to use it not for what He gave it for - just as, for example, He gave us lust so that we would lust after Him, the only good. If we use lust for this, this is virtue and goodness, and if we love something other than Him, then this is not use, but abuse. After all, it was precisely for this reason that He created us, so that we, by lusting after Him, would be involved in Him. 61. If matter is beginningless, did not arise, incorporeal, qualityless, invisible, and so is the Good God, and everything came from their essence, why is what happens from them visible? In your opinion, there was a substance without beginning, unemerged, within its own limits, forever moving randomly, fighting with itself and destroying itself. There was, they say, God - within his limits, beginningless, unemerged, eternal, incorporeal, the whole world - but matter, moving randomly and senselessly, came to the limits of light. And, amazed at God’s light, she stopped fighting with herself and went to war against the light, so that she even stole a particle of it into herself - after all, they assure that the rulers also had a substance, as in a hidden kingdom, about which they say that these are the rulers of the world of darkness and the spirits of malice (Eph. 6:12). The good God, according to them, allowed a particle of it stolen by the substance to be captured in order to limit the substance and set a limit to its further advancement within its own boundaries. If matter is beginningless, did not arise, incorporeal, qualityless, invisible, and so is the Good God, and everything came from their essence, why is what happens from them visible? After all, what comes from an incorporeal and invisible essence will also, of course, be incorporeal and invisible. And more than that, if there are two beginningless principles, unoriginating and eternal, and we are from them, but not brought into being by them from non-existent, but from their essence, then we are also beginningless and eternal - after all, the generation of each essence is consubstantial with the one that gave birth to the essence: [the generation of] the eternal is eternal, the ungenerated is ungenerated, the beginningless is beginningless. And again: if our composition is from the essence of good and evil, then we are not creatures, but children, and there is no creation in the world. And again: if it is impossible for the essence of good to turn into evil or even to think or do evil, and it is impossible for the Evil One to turn and think or do something good - and our soul is [from] the Good - then it is impossible for our soul to think anything bad, and for our body to do anything good. But we see many souls thinking evil, like the souls of the Manichaeans, and many bodies doing good, like the bodies of saints. And one more thing: if an evil [person] is composed of body and incorporeal, and also a good one, but our soul is [from] the essence of good, and our body is from the essence of evil, then our soul will be composite of corporeal and incorporeal, and body. And one more thing: if matter is without beginning, if it is incorporeal, how did it come out of the incorporeal essence? After all, the beginningless, of course, is unchangeable - the simple by nature does not unite. So how did the merger happen? And again: if matter is complex from the incorporeal and the body, and the body is opposite to the incorporeal, then who united the opposites? After all, opposites would not communicate with each other, amicably connecting into one plexus and one hypostasis, if the power of the Creator did not bring them together. This means that the substance, being complex, received the existence of the Divine Word. And again: is matter corruptible or perishable? For corruption destroys and is not destroyed, but corruptible is destroyed by corruption - and corruptible, that is, decaying, is matter. 62. What is destructive, or corruption, or perishable? What is destructive, or corruption, or perishable? After all, decay is the disintegration of components. The one who causes corruption destroys, and the disintegrating complex decays. Both destruction and decay are the essence of essence, and corruption is an incoming sign, seen in the disintegration of the constituents, which does not exist before and does not remain after. 63. So what is a substance - destroyer, decay or perishable? So what is a substance - destroyer, decay or perishable? If you answer that it is a destroyer, tell me what does it destroy if not the Good? After all, you say that there is nothing except matter and the Good. So, if there were two, then the substance destroys, and the good one creates, or the substance is formed, and the Good one decays and perishes. If it destroys itself, know that nothing destroys itself, and if it did destroy itself, it would destroy itself and go into non-existence. And how is perishable without beginning? If it is perishable, how is it destroyed, if not by the Good, and it will be the Good destroyer. If it is decay, then how is it produced and from what does it come from? After all, corruption is decay, as we said. So, who is the destroyer and what is being destroyed? And that matter cannot be corruption and a corruptible essence can be understood from here - after all, the corruptible essence precedes and pre-exists as a composite hypostasis. Smoldering comes after addition, dissolving the components. How could there be an essence of matter if it was accompanied and co-realized by decay? But perhaps you will say that corruption was once not in action, but in possibility, and also corruptible. But know - indeed, there is destruction and creation, but corruption and creation do not yet act, because what is corrupted and created cannot be coeternal with the destroyer and creator - however, you say that nothing was brought from non-existence into being, but that evil is destructive and destructive for itself, so that, having not action, but the ability to destroy and decay, it was imperfect. And that which develops from imperfect to perfect is not without beginning - for if the unchangeable is without beginning, then what is transformed is not without beginning. And again: what comes first in a substance – its essence or decay? And if it is decay, then the substance could not exist before it began to collapse. If its essence pre-existed corruption, then it is essence and existence rather than corruption, and was once incorruption, not having the opposite corruption, and corruption is not without beginning. If its essence was always self-destructive, then how did it produce fruit? If it destroyed in part, then it was not entirely destructive, and not entirely perishable, and not completely evil. If, being destructive, it stopped destroying itself, then either destruction is evil and it turned from evil into good, or destruction is good, and then from good it became evil. If a substance is evil and destroys itself, then it is good, because the destroyer of evil is good. And again: tell me, was the substance light or dark? And if light, then from the essence of good - and here is one beginning, not two. If there is darkness, then how does darkness see? After all, if he sees, he has light. If she does not have light, then she is blind, and how did she see the light? And how will the darkness be in the light and not dissipate? And what does light have in common with darkness? (2 Cor. 6:14). And again: was the substance alive or not? And if it was not alive, then how did it come into motion? After all, everything that does not have life is motionless. If it was alive, then it had life either from itself or from without. And if from itself, then it was life, not death. If it received life from the outside, that is, from the Good, then how is the one who revived evil good? If from another, then there will be not two, but three. And one more thing: the substance was from itself without beginning or originated from another. And if it came from another, it is not without beginning. If it was without beginning, then it always had existence and never had non-existence. How do you call it corruption and death? After all, decay produces non-existence, but matter never had non-existence - after all, it has always existed, as you say. So how can it give what it doesn't have? And again: emergence and decay are opposites. For emergence is a bringing from non-existent into being, and corruption is decay from existing into non-existence. So, if a substance, in your opinion, is decay, then how does it produce fruit and give birth? And again: perfect corruption destroys itself - for if it forms itself, it is not perfect corruption. If it destroys itself, it will not exist. 64. Everything that happens happens either for the sake of good or for the sake of imaginary good Good (ἀγαθόν) is so called because everything strongly strives (ἄγαν θεῖν) towards it, and by nature it is attractive and desirable, which everything naturally desires. Evil is an unnatural aspiration, that is, when we strive for something other than the natural object of aspiration. “So, good is the beginning and the end of both good and evil - for everything is for the sake of good, both good and the opposite - after all, we do this in thirst for good. For no one does what he does with evil in mind. Therefore, evil does not have a hypostasis, but a secondary existence, occurring for the sake of good, and not for its own sake” 9. For everything that happens happens either for the sake of good or for the sake of imaginary good. 65. When is a prophet misled by God? A prophet is deceived by God either when God allows him to be deceived by the merit of his desire, or when he prophesies and God does otherwise than was predicted, and then it is said that he was deceived by God, that is, he turned out to be a deceiver. 66. The substance that you call evil, and darkness, and corruption, and death, beginningless and eternal, was it an essence or an incidental one? So tell us, Manichaeans: the substance that you call evil, and darkness, and corruption, and death, beginningless and eternal, was it an essence or an incidental one? And if the essence, then it was either a body, like earth, water, air, fire - or incorporeal, like God, an angel, a soul - or a complex of body and incorporeal. And if it was a body, then it was motionless - for every body is soulless and motionless. And how, without moving, did it come to the limits of the light? Or how did the movement get started? Either the one who gave movement to evil is good and not good, or someone else gave it movement besides the Good, and there will be three principles, not two. If you say that the substance was incorporeal, then where did the body come from? After all, an incorporeal and beginningless essence cannot turn into a body. Where then does the innumerable multitude of bodies come from? If you say that a substance is complex from body and incorporeal, know that it is impossible for a complex to arise except from simple ones, just as it is impossible for two to arise except from one and one, and it is impossible for a person to arise unless from soul and body, and it is impossible for a body to arise unless from simple elements, earth, water, air and fire. So, it is necessary that first there be simple ones, and then the complex arises from the simple ones. And then there will be not two beginnings, but three. Thus, it is impossible for a substance to be without beginning. And if it is complex from the body and the incorporeal, why did it not create man from the body and from its incorporeal essence? 67. Listen to what the damned Manichaeans, darkened about the light, the lips of the devil, say Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth (Isa. 1:2). Listen, heaven, I will speak; and listen, O earth, to the words of my mouth (Deut. 32:1) For I will speak the words not of my own heart, but of the darkened and defiled Manichaeans. Listen, peoples, tribes, tongues, listen. May heaven and earth become one disgrace today. Listen to what the damned Manichaeans, darkened about the light, the lips of the devil, say. They say that the substance fought with God and tore away a part of Him. They say that God is limited, warring and defending, and grieving and cut. Is God defending himself? Is God being dissected? Alas, alas for me, and we will not kill them? We won't destroy it with fire? Shall we talk to them? Will we accept them into fellowship? He who communicates with them is like them and will be on their side both in this and in the next century. Brothers (this is what they call fellowship), we will die, but we will not accept the Manichaeans into fellowship. Let us die in order to live - whoever accepts them into fellowship is a Manichaean like them. It is better to fall into Judaism and die as a Jew than to associate with the Manichaeans. And you, of the Manichaeans, listen for God’s sake, O men, listen to what the godless Mani says. The world, he says, is not God’s, but the devil’s. They want to separate us from our God. And God was upset, he says, that a part of Him was cut off, and suffered. If a part of Him was cut off, then He is perishable - after all, everything that is cut is perishable. Evil has stolen and captured, he says, a particle from God, and because of this God sends, captures and kidnaps the part stolen from Him. Are you bringing in the robbers of God, you godless one? But God also created the tools, he says, the twelve vessels, the sun and the moon, in order to take away what was his 10. And what then, in order to finish with something - so that the Good One would send fire and burn the world and destroy everything, and return the substance down to its place, and [with it] the souls that did not accept Mani? Listen to what the enemy of God says, what power the substance gives - it overthrows the power of the Almighty. First, he says, He was robbed and robbed. What powerlessness! Are you saying that my God is powerless? But he allowed it voluntarily. Why was He upset if He did not suffer violence? No one is upset when they give theirs voluntarily. If He [did this] so that His place would not be conquered, unable to otherwise cope with the substance, and became upset, then how is He not powerless? Then, He is upset and tormented by that part that is from Him, and comes up with tricks, and arranges tools to get what is his, and does not even get all of his own back - for the souls that did not follow Mani are punished forever - and in the end, the substance, having rebelled and oppressed the Good, itself not oppressed, but in the worst case returned to itself, again finds itself in its place, moreover, together with the souls, not those who believed Mani. But maybe it will rise again. 68. Was the substance that was initially at rest good or evil? Tell us, O Manichaeans: was the substance that was initially at rest good or evil? If he was evil, then, having rebelled, he became good. If at first it is good, then it is evil. Then, having risen up on itself and in a disorderly movement having come to the limits of the light, if it saw the immaterial light, how is it blind? And how can matter see immaterial light? And if she thought, how unreasonable and wordless? And if, in your opinion, she loved, then how soullessly? And why is it evil? After all, loving good is not evil. And why is it unreasonable and unwise [if] it came out of its limits not like a dumb animal, but like the best commander, in perfect order, and, having captured a fair amount of spoils of light, returned to itself? And why do you call it bad, since it received and contained good? After all, what is capable of perceiving good is not opposite to it and is not hostile. And again: if a substance stole a part of God, then the substance is active and creative, but the nature of good is passive and fluid. If it desired good, and the Good gave part of its share to evil, then both turned - after all, evil desired good and became good, and good, allowing itself to be mixed with evil, became evil. And again: was the good damaged by the theft and confusion, or did it itself damage, bring or benefit? If it has received a benefit, then the one who has benefited is effective and good, but the one who has received is painful and weaker than it. If it is damaged, then what is damaged is painful, and what is damaged is stronger than it. If it hurts, then it is evil. If it brought benefit, then the Good One is envious, upset and vindictive, since he consigned the substance to fire, and due to an excess of vindictiveness, along with it, a part of himself. If the good did not suffer and did not cause harm, did not bring and did not receive benefit, then, firstly, it is ineffective - after all, the good, wherever it is, helps, having a good effect - and secondly, it is unfair, because, without suffering harm and without bringing benefit, it punishes an innocent substance. If, in your opinion, God is angry and upset because matter has loved Him and communed with Him, let no one love Him. And if, as you say, God, having learned about the approach of the substance, voluntarily allowed a part of Him to be stolen from Him, in order to, by limiting its movement, take revenge, like melting a net in Gehenna - then, firstly, why didn’t He immediately melt it and deliver it to Gehenna? If he could not do otherwise than in this way, why does he reproach us for not resisting the evil one, when he himself betrayed our souls due to impotence? Further, speaking about Gehenna, you will say that it is either consubstantial with the Evil One, or another essence, and then there are no longer two, but three [principles]. If it is consubstantial with good, then how does it punish? After all, Gehenna is not good. If it is consubstantial with evil, then it does not punish evil - for nothing punishes itself. And if there is something other than two, then there are three principles, and not two, or it was brought into being from something that does not exist. And if so, then why didn’t we take the direct path and say that everything was brought from non-existence into being? The beginningless is unchangeable: for transformation is the emergence of something that did not exist before. And whose existence is from transformation is changeable by nature, and whose existence did not begin from transformation, but without beginning, then by nature it is unchangeable. Then how did we arise from two beginningless entities? After all, if they themselves are not like that, then they, like us, are also people. If so, how did they become? This means that we are not from beginningless entities, but from non-existence. If matter and evil are a beginningless and eternal principle, having from itself being and everything that it has, that is, tyranny, and power, and evil, then it will have this unchanged. So how can one who is so afraid of him that he allows a part of himself to be captured by him to overcome him in the end? 69. Why did God, foreseeing that the devil in the future would turn from good into evil and lose good, and remain in the non-existence of good, which is evil, created him? M.: Why did God, foreseeing that the devil in the future would turn from good into evil and lose good, and remain in the non-existence of good, which is evil, [still] created him? P: If he foresaw it, then he foresaw that it would definitely happen, because foreseeing something that will not certainly happen is not foresight, but ignorance and delusion. M.: Did God want to create him? M.: Why did He, being good, want to create him, who would be evil? P.: God created him good, but he voluntarily turned and lost his goodness. M.: Why did he lose the benefit? P: Because he had free will. M.: Why did He create him free and changeable? P: Every creature is changeable by nature, for whose origin began with transformation must necessarily be changeable. Isn’t bringing from non-existence into being a transformation? So, only the Divinity by nature is unchangeable as uncreated and ever-present. Creatures, those that are intelligent, are voluntarily changeable, transforming according to their own will, and everything else [transforms] bodily. Free - because [he acts] not out of necessity: for everything rational is autocratic. For what will he use his reason for if he is not autocratic? Or how can one be virtuous or good without being autocratic? After all, what happens by force or by natural necessity is not virtue - therefore the dumb ones do not have virtue. And because of someone’s frivolity, to abolish the virtue of the good is not a just thing. M: This means that He had to create only those who would be virtuous, so that only good and only virtue would be created. P.: Perfect good is only God, and in comparison with Him everything is imperfect, and is good and is called it insofar as it participates in Him, and in comparison with each other. For what is more involved in good is and is called greater good, and what is less is called lesser - and what is not at all involved is not good at all. And that which is not good at all is entirely evil. And being itself is good, for being is from the good God, so that the devil, existing, is good by his very being. 70. Why does the Lord say: it would have been better for that person not to have been born (Matthew 26:24)? M.: Why does the Lord say: it would have been better for that person not to have been born (Matthew 26:24)? P.: Because it is fitting for the Good to give blessings, but for the recipient it is shame and reproach not to preserve the blessings that he has received, not because of the Giver, but through his own fault and because of his frivolity. And God, being good, cannot help but deliver good, that is, he does not want, and he who does not want to receive is to blame for himself, considering it better for himself not to receive than to receive. So, it is unfair and not good that because of his reluctance to accept the Good, there should be an obstacle to good deeds and the bestowal of benefits. For in this way evil would conquer good if God, through goodness, brings from non-existent into being, and evil, voluntarily transformed from good, would hinder the good creation of the Good. Therefore, the Lord did not say: “It would have been better if that person had not been born,” but it would have been better for that person. It is good, and natural, and just for the Good One to do good and give benefits, but the one who accepted and did not save, made the acceptance a reproach for himself - for, not wanting the good, he does not enjoy and does not even desire the good that he has. For being is not in our power, but only from God, and to be good is both from God and from us. So, God, as is His nature, gives existence and good existence, and we either do what is in our power - to preserve the given blessings - or not. And what depends on God alone, He Himself gives to us as good, whether we want it or not, so that there is goodness in us at least to some extent. 71. God always provides benefits to the devil, but he does not want to accept God always provides benefits to the devil, but he does not want to accept them. And in the next century, God gives good to everyone - for He is the source of good, pouring out goodness on everyone, and everyone partakes of good, as much as he has prepared himself for those who receive it. Therefore, here, having an attraction to other things and achieving them, we at least somehow enjoy, and there, when God will be all and in everything (1 Cor. 15:28), and there will be neither food nor drink, nor any carnal pleasure, nor injustice, those who no longer have ordinary pleasures, but also those from God, are no longer receptive, suffer inescapably, not because God created punishment, but because we ourselves arranged our punishment, since God did not create death, but we ourselves brought it upon ourselves. For by nature everything that is complex disintegrates, but since Adam was united with God through speculation, he had within himself life that supernaturally vivified his mortal nature. When he retreated from unity with life, that is, with God, he passed from supernatural incorruptibility to the natural disintegration of the complex, which is death. 72. It is not in our power to receive being, but to be good is in ours But since some say that God should, having foreseen those who would sin and not repent and be condemned, not bring them from non-existence into being - after all, it was not fitting for good to create and punish - let us first answer them with the words of the Apostle: And who are you, man, that you argue with God? For who can resist His will? (Rom. 9:20; 19). For what He wills is good, and the potter has the power to make one vessel for honorable [use], and another for base (Rom. 9:21). For He Himself creates both the righteous and sinners, but He Himself does not make them righteous and sinners, or honorable or base: for the Apostle himself says in his letter to Timothy, after listing the vices, adding: Therefore, whoever is clean from this will be a vessel of honor (2 Tim. 2:21). For, being autocratic, we have the power to cleanse ourselves of the most shameful passions - and to defile ourselves. However, God created everyone good. So, He Himself provides existence and prosperity to everyone, like the sun, extending the rays of His goodness to all His deeds. And it is not in our power to receive being, but to be good is in ours. Therefore, if we want and thirst, we will participate in His goodness and will forever be in the light. If we are careless and blind ourselves, and do not thirst for Him, then we will remain unrelated to Him. So, it should not have been that, because of our frivolity, He should have refused to give the gifts of His goodness, of which the first is being, and it was impossible that our vices would prevail and render His goodness ineffective. For if this were so, then nothing would come into being from among those that exist - for nothing that exists lives worthy of His goodness. Indeed, in comparison with Him, in fairness, everything is unworthy of existence. 73. God is not only good, but also righteous, and sees everything that has not yet arisen as existing However, God is not only good, but also righteous, and sees everything that has not yet come into being as existing. For He calls those things which are not as though they were (Rom. 4:17). If, out of goodness, He should not have created those punished, then rather, out of the abundance of goodness, He should have created them and not punished them, but forgive them their sins - for He is the Lord of both, to create and forgive. If it is fair that sinners should be punished, then it is fair that they should arise. For God sees “things that do not exist as if they exist” and judges not by the outcome of the matter, but by foreseeing the future. Because He does not know by the outcome of what is happening, but He foresees the future and, according to His providence, predetermines. But how does He foresee what will not happen? For if He had foreseen the sinner and had not created him, then this would not have been providence, but error - after all, just as they know what exists, so they foresee what will definitely happen. 74. Let us not judge God - for we do not know His plan Therefore, let us not judge God - for we do not know His plan. Who understood the spirit of the Lord and was His counselor? (Isa.40:13). After all, He did not reveal to us His entire plan, but how useful it was for us to know, and He hid what was not useful. So, let us not ask God for an account - for He Himself is the Judge and the Source of good things, and there is no good except what He desires, just as there is no light except that emitted by the sun. 75. God, being by nature good and compassionate, does not want sin So, God Himself, being by nature good and compassionate, does not want sin, does not want the death of the sinner (Ezek. 33:11) and does not rejoice in the death of the living (Wis. 1:13), is not possessed by the passion of anger and does not punish, but pours out good things to everyone. The thirsty one receives, and the good one achieves blessings - and in this life there is a certain structure and management and an ineffable providence, calling sinners to conversion and repentance, and after death there is no longer any transformation or repentance - not because God does not accept repentance, because He cannot deny Himself and does not refuse compassion - but the soul no longer transforms. Therefore, even if someone fulfills all righteousness and, having converted, sins and leaves life with an attraction to sin, he will die in his sin. Likewise, if a sinner repents and dies in repentance, his sins will not be remembered to him. For just as demons do not repent after falling away, and angels now do not sin, but both have received immutability, so people after death have immutability - and the righteous, drawn to God and possessing Him, rejoice in Him forever, and sinners, drawn to sin, not having the object of sin, are punished without any consolation, as if consumed by fire and a worm. And what is punishment if not deprivation of what one desires? Therefore, in accordance with their lust, those who thirst for God rejoice, and those who thirst for sin are punished - for just as those who achieve what they desire rejoice according to their lust, so those who do not achieve it suffer according to their lust. 76. What is the Almighty? You tell us: what is the Almighty? – Of course, “he who possesses all things,” because the apostle says: and he who arranged everything is God (Heb. 3:4). But how will God be the Almighty without dominion over matter and evil? Or how will he be the Creator without creating the substance Himself? Or how is He God, being imperfect and having insufficient power? For why did He not destroy and subjugate matter, but allow it to rebel, even if only for a moment? If He did not will, then it is not good - for it is not the business of the good and the righteous to calmly look at those who sin. If he could not, then the weak God is not God (you cannot say, as we said about the emergence and existence of the devil, that the very fact that he exists is good. For we, giving him existence from good, would rightly say: it is good that he is, because what is given from good is good. But you, giving existence to a substance not from good and, moreover, calling it evil and by nature evil, and completely not involved in the good, you cannot say that its existence is good). So, in your opinion, God is either not good or weak, since he did not destroy him in the first place. And again: if everything is from the essence of good and from the essence of evil, then neither the Good One will be the Creator, nor the evil one - but [both of them] are the fathers of existence. And again: if evil is opposite to good as being to being, and the beginning to the beginning, and the essence of essence, and, as you put it, as God to God, and to do good or evil is in our will, then it is in our will to bring victory to Good or Evil, and we are the reason that one takes over. 77. Just as the essence of God is incomprehensible, so is His will and providence For we say that the one God is good, righteous, the Creator of everything, rules over everything, is omnipotent, can do whatever He wants, and that everything was created by Him, visible and invisible, not from His essence, but from the Non-existent [brought] into being - for the Lord creates everything that He wants (Ps. 135:6), - and we call good what He wants, for creation is not judged Who created. But we do not know the essence of His providence: for who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who was His counselor (Rom. 11:34). If His desire and His will were known, He would not be a wonderful God. For just as His essence is incomprehensible, so is His will and providence. After all, if no one knows what is in a person, except for the spirit of everyone that is in him (1 Cor. 2:11), but even each person does not know everything in himself - after all, he does not know the future, and he does not know what he wants, or what he wants or desires tomorrow - then how will he know the will of God and His desire, who often forgets his own thoughts? 78. God’s providence is that He foresees everything God's providence is that He foresees everything. And to us, who know neither the future, nor the past, nor the whole present, His government seems impermanent, but in reality it is constant, and good, and just. For, foreseeing what is in our will, the future as existing, He judges fairly, as He Himself wants and desires - after all, God does not see as man sees. For man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart (1 Samuel 16:7). And we see that what according to general judgment is fair is often unjust because it leads to evil and because not everyone likes the same thing - after all, not everyone likes the same thing, but everyone likes something different. God judges not by change of opinion or recognition, but by foreknowledge. For God, having foreseen everything before it came into being, predestined for everyone justly, providentially and usefully what is not in our will, in accordance with what is in our will. For one is knowledge, and another is foreknowledge and another is recognition, another is determination and another is predestination. After all, knowledge is to know something that exists or arises, foreknowledge is to know something that has to be before its emergence, and recognition is true knowledge that comes after the false. And determination is a judgment and a decision on what has already happened, and predestination is a judgment and a decision on what will happen. 79. God, foreseeing what we will do voluntarily, predetermines what does not depend on us So, God, foreseeing what we will do voluntarily, that is, what depends on us - I mean virtue and evil - predetermines what does not depend on us. And the foreknowing power of God does not have a reason in us, but the foreknowledge of what we are about to create is in us: after all, if we were not about to create, then He would not have foreseen what would not happen. And God’s foreknowledge is true and inviolable, but it itself is not the reason that the future will definitely come true - He foresees that we will have to do this or that. He foresees many things that He does not like, and for which He Himself is not the cause. Just as a doctor is not guilty of illness when he foresees that someone will get sick, but the disease is caused by another cause producing the disease, and the doctor’s foresight is a matter of his art, so what we do has a reason not in God, but in our free will. Free will is not evil if we use it for what it was given to us for. And what God foresees refers to His foreknowledge power. But our punishments are not caused by God. For it is not the judge who is the cause of the punishment of the villain, even if he judges of his own free will, but the criminal himself is the cause of his own punishment, and the judge is the cause of justice, and justice is good. After all, even if he judges according to his own will, it is not according to the previous one, but according to the subsequent one. The previous will is what someone wants in itself, and the subsequent will is from the reason for what happens, for God first wants from Himself that all people should be saved and attain the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4). When we sin, He wants us to be educated for our benefit. And the previous will of God refers to His goodness, and the subsequent will to His justice. 80. God predestined everything according to His foreknowledge And that God predestined everything according to His foreknowledge, we will understand this way. The Deity is unchangeable and judges not by recognition, but by foreknowledge. So, if He judges and determines every day, then He learns every day about what is happening, and repents, and adds years to life, as some say, not knowing what they are saying. After all, if He adds, then His will and knowledge are changeable, and this is unworthy of God. If the Scripture says that He added to Hezekiah, then He added not because He did not know or did not predetermine - He Himself both foresaw and predetermined what happened to Hezekiah - but providentially presented the matter in such a way, arranging our salvation, to show how much repentance can do. And that He repents is said by comparison with us. For Scripture speaks about God to the infancy of those who hear in a more human way. After all, as it is said: why are you sleeping, Lord? (Ps. 43:24), - but God does not sleep, and His long-suffering, and generosity, and the delay of His help are called sleep - after all, those who sleep do not help us; so is repentance: after all, when we give wealth to someone and he uses it badly, we repent. So when God created Adam and anointed Saul to be king, but they sinned, it is said that He repented - not because God repented (after all, He foresaw the future), but because they committed something worthy of repentance. Let us therefore be diligent in doing good and becoming good, so that we may be among those who are good, foreseeable and predestined to eternal life. 81. Good is the best order You should know that good (and virtue is the same thing) is the best order, preserving to each his own nature, while evil is a violation of order or disorder. And good is called in two ways: either real good, like the order mentioned, or apparent - sensual pleasure, contrary to the above-mentioned order, which is not good, but rather evil. And “evil” is also said in two ways: either real evil, that is, what happens against the natural order and against the law of the Creator of one’s own will (after all, obedience to the Creator is natural order, and disorder is disobedience), or apparent good, that which is unpleasant to the feeling and painful for us, like education, which is rather good and useful to us, since it returns to the natural order. And voluntary evil is called real evil, varieties of sin, and involuntary evil is called painful. So God is not the cause of either, as we have shown. After all, even if involuntary so-called evil (because it seems to us to be evil) God justly brings upon us because of our abomination and recklessness, and because we sin, that is, we do not achieve the desired goal through greed for pleasure, he brings us, educating us for our benefit, but this evil, called involuntary, depends on the voluntary, for involuntary evil follows the voluntary. After all, misfortunes for the most part are punishments and education for correction, and the punishment of the future century is the complete destruction of evil and sin, or, conversely, for those who desire bodily pleasures contrary to the natural law and sin for their sake, the suppression and lack of use of these pleasures will be eternal punishment. After all, punishment is failure to achieve what is desired. For pleasure reaches the point of sin when it is contrary to the law of nature. It is twofold, mental or physical: spiritual is the desire for glory, and bodily is food, drink, rest of the body, sleep, intercourse with a woman. All this is natural and good when it occurs in accordance with the natural order and the law of the Creator, and bad - when contrary to the law of the Creator and the natural order and use. 83. The natural order is to seek glory from God The natural order is to strive for glory from God, and to strive for glory from each other is unnatural - for only God, who is glorified by nature, is entitled to glory from all His creatures, and for us to humble ourselves before God as the Creator and before each other for the sake of the Creator's law. For this is evidence of love for God and neighbor, which is the law of God: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and... your neighbor as yourself (Mark 12:30-31) and everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted (Luke 18:14). So the love of fame from each other leads to unbelief. For it is said: How can you believe when you receive glory from one another, but do not seek the glory that comes from the one God? (John 5:44). 84. Bodily pleasure, taken according to natural use and the law of the Creator, is good Again: bodily pleasure, food, drink and so on, taken according to natural use and the law of the Creator, is good, and when this happens against the law of God through our will and abuse, it is evil: for example, food and drink, since they serve for life and maintenance of the body, are good, like sleep, and communication with a woman - it is good to know one’s own vessel, and to use food and drink and women indiscriminately for unreasonable pleasures, like dumb animals are evil. 85. The unnatural comes from the natural at the instigation of the devil So, because of vanity, and immoderate eating and drinking, and fornication, the love of money [appears], their support, envy and quarrels, and wickedness, and lies, and slander, and theft, and murder, and hatred of one’s neighbor. And because iniquity multiplies, the love of many will grow cold (Matthew 24:12). He called “many” those who resort to lawlessness. So, the unnatural comes from the natural at the instigation of the devil. 86. Two greatest ways to help us Against all this, there are two greatest ways to help us: overpowering ourselves, for effort is a sign of love for God, and prayer, for prayer is a sign of humility. After all, we call on the power of God, admitting our powerlessness. You should know that non-judgment also delivers from sin: for not to condemn is a sign of humility. Nothing attracts God's help more than humility. For it is said: Behold my humility and my labor, and forgive all my sins (Ps. 24:18) and: Behold my humility and deliver me (Ps. 119:153) - deliver me from the enemy who is at war with me, and from my sin, and my folly. Living together with virtuous people is also useful for virtue, since man is an imitative creature, and abstaining from sensual communication with annoying people, because out of sight, out of mind. For through them the memory of sensory things arises in the soul. We must separate the mind from the memory of the sensory, so that it soars on light wings to the intelligent sun and is illuminated by its inaccessible and unimaginable beauty. For the mind becomes denser with the memory of the sensory and is drawn towards it and moves away from comprehending mental beauty and enjoying it: for no one can serve two masters (Matthew 6:24). Any art is achieved by a person through skill, perseverance and effort. 87. Everything hidden is bad, but what is revealed is light So, through effort that comes from love, and prayer, which comes from humility and flight from the sensual, and avoidance of cohabitation with the careless, and non-judgment, and humility, and communication with the virtuous, and obedience, let us accomplish our salvation, without hiding the thoughts and passions that are within us. For everything hidden is bad, but what is revealed is light. For a serpent does not give birth in the sun, but in holes, and the seed does not grow when lying on top of the earth, but hidden under the earth. Likewise, evil thoughts that are not made known bear fruit to corruption, and good ones to eternal life. May it be possible for us all to achieve through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Him be glory to the Father, together with the most holy, and good, and life-giving, and consubstantial Spirit, now and ever and unto the ages of ages. Amen. Given here, St. John's classification of causes goes back to Aristotle. The "Word" (λόγος), according to the teaching of the Stoics, could be either "pronounced" (προφορικός) or "internal" (ἐνγιάθετος). The contrast between the “spoken” word and the hypostatic Word of God can be found already in the apologists of the 2nd century, and before them in the Jewish writer Philo of Alexandria. The play on words in the Russian translation is conveyed conditionally. In this formula, as in further reasonings of St. John, there is a very strong emphasis on the freedom of human will, which should not be understood in the sense that the author completely ignored the role of Divine grace: the fact is that in a polemical work against the Manichaeans it was necessary to show that evil is not natural, but is the result of free choice. Compassion, in the original συμπάθεια, where our “sympathy” comes from. ἘμПάθεια, a single-root word, differing only in a prefix, means actual susceptibility to passions (as a rule, in the modern sense of the last word). The translation is made taking into account this play on words. For the root word πάθος, see also note. 104 to the treatise “The Epistle to the Jacobite.” In the sense that God is above being itself as its cause and only source. Therefore, “God exists” is not said in the same sense as “creation exists,” so one can say either that creation does not have existence in the proper sense (since it cannot exist on its own without the Creator), or that God “does not exist” (since He is above any definition, including being). St. Dionysius the Areopagite. About the Divine Names (PG 3, 732 VS). According to Manichaean mythology, the sun, moon and planets served as certain “way stations” through which particles of light (that is, saved souls) were transported from the material world to the region of the good principle.