from one’s abandoning the good; and there is therefore no need to look for an original evil’.  M. Bayle, quoting this passage in his Dictionary (art.  ‘Paulicians’, lit.  D, p. 2325) commends a remark by Herr Pfanner (whom he calls a German theologian, but he is a jurist by profession, Counsellor to the Dukes of Saxony), who censures St. Basil for not being willing to admit that God is the author of physical evil.  Doubtless God is its author, when the moral evil is assumed to be already in existence; but speaking generally, one might assert that God permitted physical evil by implication, in permitting moral evil which is its source.  It appears that the Stoics knew also how slender is the entity of evil.  These words of Epictetus are an indication:  ’Sicut aberrandi causa meta non ponitur, sic nec natura mali in mundo existit.’

379.  There was therefore no need to have recourse to a principle of evil, as St. Basil aptly observes.  Nor is it necessary either to seek the origin of evil in matter.  Those who believed that there was a chaos before God laid his hand upon it sought therein the source of disorder.  It was an opinion which Plato introduced into his Timaeus.  Aristotle found fault with him for that (in his third book on Heaven, ch. 2) because, [353] according to this doctrine, disorder would be original and natural, and order would have been introduced against nature.  This Anaxagoras avoided by making matter remain at rest until it was stirred by God; and Aristotle in the same passage commends him for it.  According to Plutarch (De Iside et Osiride, and Tr. de Animae Procreatione ex Timaeo) Plato recognized in matter a certain maleficent soul or force, rebellious against God:  it was an actual blemish, an obstacle to God’s plans.  The Stoics also believed that matter was the source of defects, as Justus Lipsius showed in the first book of the Physiology of the Stoics.

380.  Aristotle was right in rejecting chaos:  but it is not always easy to disentangle the conceptions of Plato, and such a task would be still less easy in respect of some ancient authors whose works are lost.  Kepler, one of the most excellent of modern mathematicians, recognized a species of imperfection in matter, even when there is no irregular motion:  he calls it its ‘natural inertia’, which gives it a resistance to motion, whereby a greater mass receives less speed from one and the same force.  There is soundness in this observation, and I have used it to advantage in this work, in order to have a comparison such as should illustrate how the original imperfection of the creatures sets bounds to the action of the Creator, which tends towards good.  But as matter is itself of God’s creation, it only furnishes a comparison and an example, and cannot be the very source of evil and of imperfection.  I have already shown that this source lies in the forms or ideas of the possibles, for it must be eternal, and matter is not so.  Now since God made all positive reality that is not eternal, he would have made the source of evil, if that did not rather lie in the possibility of things or forms, that which alone God did not make, since he is not the author of his own understanding.