good and evil, and to avoid this, and follow after that."

"But (said he) had not that maker of Adam forbidden him to eat of that
tree, he would in no way have undergone this judgment and this
punishment; for hence is evil here, in that he (Adam) had done contrary
to the bidding of God, for God had ordered him not to eat, and he had
eaten."

"Through envy (said he) he forbade Adam to taste of the tree of life, so
that, of course, he should not be immortal."

"For what reason on earth (said he) did God curse the serpent? For if
(he cursed him) as the one who caused the harm, why did he not restrain
him from so doing, that is, from seducing Adam? But if (he cursed him)
as one who had brought some advantage, in that he was the cause of
Adam's eating of that good tree, it needs must follow that he was
distinctly unrighteous and envious; lastly, if, although from neither of
these reasons, he still cursed him, he (the maker of Adam) should most
certainly be accused of ignorance and folly."

Now although there seems no reason why the above contentions should not
be considered as in substance the arguments employed by Simon against
his antagonists of the dead-letter, yet the tenth century is too late to
warrant verbal accuracy, unless there may have been some Syrian
translation which escaped the hands of the destroyers. The above quoted
specimen of traditionary Simonian logic, however, is interesting, and
will, we believe, be found not altogether out of date in our own
times.[94]

Finally, there is one further point that I have reserved for the end of