Chap. XVIII. - An Eulogy on the Wisdom and Word of God, by Which God Made All Things of Nothing.
If any material was necessary to God in the creation of the world, as Hermogenes supposed, God had a far nobler and more suitable one in His own wisdom138 - one which was not to be gauged by the writings of139 philosophers, but to be learnt from the words or prophets. This alone, indeed, knew the mind of the Lord. For “who knoweth the things of God, and the things in God, but the Spirit, which is in Him?” (1Co_2:11) Now His wisdom is that Spirit. This was His counsellor, the very way of His wisdom and knowledge. (Isa_40:14) Of this He made all things, making them through It, and making them with It. “When He prepared the heavens,” so says (the Scripture140), “I was present with Him; and when He strengthened above the winds the lofty clouds, and when He secured the fountains141 which are under the heaven, I was present, compacting these things142 along with Him. I was He143 in whom He took delight; moreover, I daily rejoiced in His presence: for He rejoiced when He had finished the world, and amongst the sons of men did He show forth His pleasure.” (Pro_8:27-31) Now, who would not rather approve of144 this as the fountain and origin of all things - of this as, in very deed, the Matter of all Matter, not liable to any end,145 not diverse in condition, not restless in motion, not ungraceful in form, but natural, and proper, and duly proportioned, and beautiful, such truly as even God might well have required, who requires His own and not another’s? Indeed, as soon as He perceived It to be necessary for His creation of the world, He immediately creates It, and generates It in Himself. “The Lord,” says the Scripture, “possessed146 me, the beginning of His ways for the creation of His works. Before the worlds He rounded me; before He made the earth, before the mountains were settled in their places; moreover, before the hills He generated me, and prior to the depths was I begotten.” (see Pro_8:1-36) Let Hermogenes then confess that the very Wisdom of God is declared to be born and created, for the especial reason that we should not suppose that there is any other being than God alone who is unbegotten and uncreated. For if that, which from its being inherent in the Lord147 was of Him and in Him, was yet not without a beginning, - I mean148 His wisdom, which was then born and created, when in the thought of God It began to assume motion149 for the arrangement of His creative works, - how much more impossible150 is it that anything should have been without a beginning which was extrinsic to the Lord!151 But if this same Wisdom is the Word of God, in the capacity152 of Wisdom, and (as being He) without whom nothing was made, just as also (nothing) was set in order without Wisdom, how can it be that anything, except the Father, should be older, and on this account indeed nobler, than the Son of God, the only-begotten and first-begotten Word? Not to say that153 what is unbegotten is stronger than that which is born, and what is not made more powerful than that which is made. Because that which did not require a Maker to give it existence, will be much more elevated in rank than that which had an author to bring it into being. On this principle, then,154 if evil is indeed unbegotten, whilst the Son of God is begotten (“for,” says God, “my heart hath emitted my most excellent Word”155), I am not quite sure that evil may not be introduced by good, the stronger by the weak, in the same way as the unbegotten is by the begotten. Therefore on this ground Hermogenes puts Matter even before God, by putting it before the Son. Because the 488 Son is the Word, and “the Word is God,” (Joh_1:1) and “I and my Father are one.” (Joh_10:30) But after all, perhaps,156 the Son will patiently enough submit to having that preferred before Him which (by Hermogenes), is made equal to the Father!
Chap. XIX. - An Appeal to the History of Creation. True Meaning of the Term Beginning, Which the Heretic Curiously Wrests to an Absurd Sense.
But I shall appeal to the original document157 of Moses, by help of which they on the other side vainly endeavour to prop up their conjectures, with the view, of course, of appearing to have the support of that authority which is indispensable in such an inquiry. They have found their opportunity, as is usual with heretics, in wresting the plain meaning of certain words. For instance the very beginning,158 when God made the heaven and the earth, they will construe as if it meant something substantial and embodied,159 to be regarded as Matter. We, however, insist on the proper signification of every word, and say that principium means beginning, - being a term which is suitable to represent things which begin to exist. For nothing which has come into being is without a beginning, nor can this its commencement be at any other moment than when it begins to have existence. Thus principium or beginning, is simply a term of inception, not the name of a substance. Now, inasmuch as the heaven and the earth are the principal works of God, and since, by His making them first, He constituted them in an especial manner the beginning of His creation, before all things else, with good reason does the Scripture preface (its record of creation) with the words,” In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth;” (Gen_1:1) just as it would have said, “At last God made the heaven and the earth,” if God had created these after all the rest. Now, if the beginning is a substance, the end must also be material. No doubt, a substantial thing160 may be the beginning of some other thing which may be formed out of it thus the clay is the beginning of the vessel and the seed is the beginning of the plant. But when we employ the word beginning in this sense of origin, and not in that of order, we do not omit to mention also the name of that particular thing which we regard as the origin of the other. On the other hand,161 if we were to make such a statement as this, for example, “In the beginning the potter made a basin or a water-jug,” the word beginning will not here indicate a material substance (for I have not mentioned the clay, which is the beginning in this sense, but only the order of the work, meaning that the potter made the basin and the jug first, before anything else - intending afterwards to make the rest. It is, then, to the order of the works that the word beginning has reference, not to the origin of their substances. I might also explain this word beginning in another way, which would not, however, be inapposite.162 The Greek term for beginning, which is ἀρχή, admits the sense not only of priority of order, but of power as well; whence princes and magistrates are called ἀρχοντες. Therefore in this sense too, beginning may be taken for princely authority and power. It was, indeed, in His transcendent authority and power, that God made the heaven and the earth.
Chap. XX. - Meaning of the Phrase - In the Beginning. Tertullian Connects It with the Wisdom of God, and Elicits from It the Truth that the Creation Was Not out of Pre-Existent Matter.
But in proof that the Greek word means nothing else than beginning, and that beginning admits of no other sense than the initial one, we have that (Being)163 even acknowledging such a beginning, who says: “The Lord possessed164 me, the beginning of His ways for the creation of His works.” (Pro_8:22) For since all things were made by the Wisdom of God, it follows that, when God made both the heaven and the earth in principio - that is to say, in the beginning - He made them in His Wisdom. If, indeed, beginning had a material signification, the Scripture would not have informed us that God made so and so in principio, at the beginning, but rather ex principio, of the beginning; for He would not have created in, but of, matter. When Wisdom, however, was referred to, it was quite right to say, in the beginning. For it was in Wisdom that He made all things at first, because by meditating and arranging His plans therein,165 He had in fact already done (the work of creation); and if He had even intended to create out of matter, He would yet have effected His creation when He previously meditated 489 on it and arranged it in His Wisdom, since It166 was in fact the beginning of His ways: this meditation and arrangement being the primal operation of Wisdom, opening as it does the way to the works by the act of meditation and thought.167 This authority of Scripture I claim for myself even from this circumstance, that whilst it shows me the God who created, and the works He created, it does not in like manner reveal to me the source from which He created. For since in every operation there are three principal things, He who makes, and that which is made, and that of which it is made, there must be three names mentioned in a correct narrative of the operation - the person of the maker the sort of thing which is made,168 and the material of which it is formed. If the material is not mentioned, while the work and the maker of the work are both mentioned, it is manifest that He made the work out of nothing. For if He had had anything to operate upon, it would have been mentioned as well as (the other two particulars).169 In conclusion, I will apply the Gospel as a supplementary testimony to the Old Testament. Now in this there is all the greater reason why there should be shown the material (if there were any) out of which God made all things, inasmuch as it is therein plainly revealed by whom He made all things. “In the beginning was the Word” (Joh_1:1) - that is, the same beginning, of course, in which God made the heaven and the earth (Gen_1:1) - “and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made by Him, and without Him nothing was made.” (Joh_1:1-3) Now, since we have here clearly told us who the Maker was, that is, God, and what He made, even all things, and through whom He made them, even His Word, would not the order of the narrative have required that the source out of which all things were made by God through the Word should likewise be declared, if they had been in fact made out of anything? What, therefore, did not exist, the Scripture was unable to mention; and by not mentioning it, it has given us a clear proof that there was no such thing: for if there had been, the Scripture would have mentioned it.
Chap. XXI. - A Retort of Heresy Answered. That Scripture Should in so Many Words Tell Us that the World Was Made of Nothing Is Superfluous.
But, you will say to me, if you determine that all things were made of nothing, on the ground that it is not told us that anything was made out of pre-existent Matter, take care that it be not contended on the opposite side, that on the same ground all things were made out of Matter, because it is not likewise expressly said that anything was made out of nothing. Some arguments may, of course,170 be thus retorted easily enough; but it does not follow that they are on that account fairly admissible, where there is a diversity in the cause. For I maintain that, even if the Scripture has not expressly declared that all things were made out of nothing - just as it abstains (from saying that they were formed) out of Matter - there was no such pressing need for expressly indicating the creation of all things out of nothing, as there was of their creation out of Matter, if that had been their origin. Because, in the case of what is made out of nothing, the very fact of its not being indicated that it was made of any particular thing shows that it was made of nothing; and there is no danger of its being supposed that it was made of anything, when there is no indication at all of what it was made of. In the case, however, of that which is made out of something, unless the very fact be plainly declared, that it was made out of something, there will be danger, until171 it is shown of what it was made, first of its appearing to be made of nothing, because it is not said of what it was made; and then, should it be of such a nature172 as to have the appearance of having certainly been made of something, there will be a similar risk of its seeming to have been made of afar different material from the proper one, so long as there is an absence of statement of what it was made of. Then, if God had been unable to make all things of nothing, the Scripture could not possibly have added that He had made all things of nothing: (there could have been no room for such a statement,) but it must by all means have informed us that He had made all things out of Matter, since Matter must have been the source; because the one case was quite to be understood,173 if it were not actually stated, whereas the other case would be left in doubt unless it were stated.
Chap. XXII. - This Conclusion Confirmed by the Usage of Holy Scripture in Its History of the Creation. Hermogenes in Danger of the Woe Pronounced Against Adding to Scripture.
And to such a degree has the Holy Ghost 490 made this the rule of His Scripture, that whenever anything is made out of anything, He mentions both the thing that is made and the thing of which it is made. “Let the earth,” says He, “bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit-tree yielding fruit after its kind, whose seed is in itself, after its kind. And it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after its kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after its kind.” (Gen_1:11-12) And again: “And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that have life, and fowl that may fly above the earth through the firmament of heaven. And it was so. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind.” (Gen_1:20-21) Again afterwards: “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beasts of the earth after their kind.” (Gen_1:24) If therefore God, when producing other things out of things which had been already made, indicates them by the prophet, and tells us what He has produced from such and such a source174 (although we might ourselves suppose them to be derived from some source or other, short of nothing;175 since there had already been created certain things, from which they might easily seem to have been made); if the Holy Ghost took upon Himself so great a concern for our instruction, that we might know from what everything was produced,176 would He not in like manner have kept us well informed about both the heaven and the earth, by indicating to us what it was that He made them of, if their original consisted of any material substance, so that the more He seemed to have made them of nothing, the less in fact was there as yet made, from which He could appear to have made them? Therefore, just as He shows us the original out of which He drew such things as were derived from a given source, so also with regard to those things of which He does not point out whence He produced them, He confirms (by that silence our assertion) that they were produced out of nothing. “In the beginning,” then, “God made the heaven and the earth.” (Gen_1:1) I revere177 the fulness of His Scripture, in which He manifests to me both the Creator and the creation. In the gospel, moreover, I discover a Minister and Witness of the Creator, even His Word. (Joh_1:3) But whether all things were made out of any underlying Matter, I have as yet failed anywhere to find. Where such a statement is written, Hermogenes’ shop178 must tell us. If it is nowhere written, then let it fear the woe which impends on all who add to or take away from the written word. (Rev_22:18-19)
Chap. XXIII. - Hermogenes Pursued to Another Passage of Scripture. The Absurdity of His Interpretation Exposed.
But he draws an argument from the following words, where it is written: “And the earth was without form, and void.” (Gen_1:2) For he resolves179 the word earth into Matter, because that which is made out of it is the earth. And to the word was he gives the same direction, as if it pointed to what had always existed unbegotten and unmade. It was without form, moreover, and void, because he will have Matter to have existed shapeless and confused, and without the finish of a maker’s hand.180 Now these opinions of his I will refute singly; but first I wish to say to him, by way of general answer: We are of opinion that Matter is pointed at in these terms. But yet does the Scripture intimate that, because Matter was in existence before all, anything of like condition181 was even formed out of it? Nothing of the kind. Matter might have had existence, if it so pleased - or rather if Hermogenes so pleased. It might, I say, have existed, and yet God might not have made anything out of it, either as it was unsuitable to Him to have required the aid of anything, or at least because He is not shown to have made anything out of Matter. Its existence must therefore be without a cause, you will say. Oh, no! certainly182 not without cause. For even if the world were not made out of it, yet a heresy has been hatched therefrom; and a specially impudent one too, because it is not Matter which has produced the heresy, but the heresy has rather made Matter itself.
Chap. XXIV. - Earth Does Not Mean Matter as Hermogenes Would Have It.
I now return to the several points183 by means of which he thought that Matter was signified. And first I will inquire about the 491 terms. For we read only of one of them, Earth; the other, namely Matter, we do not meet with. I ask, then, since Matter is not mentioned in Scripture, how the term earth can be applied to it, which marks a substance of another kind? There is all the greater need why mention should also have been made of Matter, if this has acquired the further sense of Earth, in order that I may be sure that Earth is one and the same name as Matter, and so not claim the designation for merely one substance, as the proper name thereof, and by which it is better known; or else be unable (if I should feel the inclination), to apply it to some particular species of Mater, instead, indeed,184 of making it the common term185 of all Matter. For when a proper name does not exist for that thing to which a common term is ascribed, the less apparent186 is the object to which it may be ascribed, the more capable will it be of being applied to any other object whatever. Therefore, even supposing that Hermogenes could show us the name187 Matter, he is bound to prove to us further, that the same object has the surname188 Earth, in order that he may claim for it both designations alike.
Chap. XXV. - The Assumption that There Are Two Earths Mentioned in the History of the Creation, Refuted.
He accordingly maintains that there are two earths set before us in the passage in question: one, which God made in the beginning; the other being the Matter of which God made the world, and concerning which it is said, “And the earth was without form, and void.” (Gen_1:2) Of course, if I were to ask, to which of the two earths the name earth is best suited,189 I shall be told that the earth which was made derived the appellation from that of which it was made, on the ground that it is more likely that the offspring should get its name from the original, than the original from the offspring. This being the case, another question presents itself to us, whether it is right and proper that this earth which God made should have derived its name from that out of which He made it? For I find from Hermogenes and the rest of the Materialist heretics,190 that while the one earth was indeed “without form, and void,” this one of ours obtained from God in an equal degree191 both form, and beauty, and symmetry; and therefore that the earth which was created was a different thing from that out of which it was created. Now, having become a different thing, it could not possibly have shared with the other in its name, after it had declined from its condition. If earth was the proper name of the (original) Matter, this world of ours, which is not Matter, because it has become another thing, is unfit to bear the name of earth, seeing that that name belongs to something else, and is a stranger to its nature. But (you will tell me) Matter which has undergone creation, that is, our earth, had with its original a community of name no less than of kind. By no means. For although the pitcher is formed out of the clay, I shall no longer call it clay, but a pitcher; so likewise, although electrum192 is compounded of gold and silver, I shall yet not call it either gold or silver, but electrum. When there is a departure from the nature of any thing, there is likewise a relinquishment of its name - with a propriety which is alike demanded by the designation and the condition. How great a change indeed from the condition of that earth, which is Matter, has come over this earth of ours, is plain even from the fact that the latter has received this testimony to its goodness in Genesis, “And God saw that it was good;” (Gen_1:31) while the former, according to Hermogenes, is regarded as the origin and cause of all evils. Lastly, if the one is Earth because the other is, why also is the one not Matter as the other is? Indeed, by this rule both the heaven and all creatures ought to have had the names of Earth and Matter, since they all consist of Matter. I have said enough touching the designation Earth, by which he will have it that Matter is understood. This, as everybody knows, is the name of one of the elements; for so we are taught by nature first, and afterwards by Scripture, except it be that credence must be given to that Silenus who talked so confidently in the presence of king Midas of another world, according to the account of Theopompus. But the same author informs us that there are also several gods.
Chap. XXVI. - The Method Observed in the History of the Creation, in Reply to the Perverse Interpretation of Hermogenes.
We, however, have but one God, and but 492 one earth too, which in the beginning God made. (Gen_1:1) The Scripture, which at its very outset proposes to run through the order thereof tells us as its first information that it was created; it next proceeds to set forth what sort of earth it was.193 In like manner with respect to the heaven, it informs us first of its creation - “In the beginning God made the heaven:” (Gen_1:1) it then goes on to introduce its arrangement; how that God both separated “the water which was below the firmament from that which was above the firmament,” (Gen_1:7) and called the firmament heaven, (Gen_1:8) - the very thing He had created in the beginning. Similarly it (afterwards) treats of man: “And God created man, in the image of God made He him.” (Gen_1:27) It next reveals how He made him: “And (the Lord) God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” (Gen_2:7) Now this is undoubtedly194 the correct and fitting mode for the narrative. First comes a prefatory statement, then follow the details in full;195 first the subject is named, then it is described.196 How absurd is the other view of the account,197 when even before he198 had premised any mention of his subject, i.e., Matter, without even giving us its name, he all on a sudden promulged its form and condition, describing to us its quality before mentioning its existence, - pointing out the figure of the thing formed, but concealing its name! But how much more credible is our opinion, which holds that Scripture has only subjoined the arrangement of the subject after it has first duly described its formation and mentioned its name! Indeed, how full and complete199 is the meaning of these words: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth; but200 the earth was without form, and void,” (Gen_1:1-2) - the very same earth, no doubt, which God made, and of which the Scripture had been speaking at that very moment.201 For that very “but”202 is inserted into the narrative like a clasp,203 (in its function) of a conjunctive particle, to connect the two sentences indissolubly together: “But the earth.” This word carries back the mind to that earth of which mention had just been made, and binds the sense thereunto.204 Take away this “but,” and the tie is loosened; so much so that the passage, “But the earth was without form, and void,” may then seem to have been meant for any other earth.
Chap. XXVII. - Some Hair-Splitting Use of Words in Which His Opponent Had Indulged.
But you next praise your eyebrows, and toss back your head, and beckon with your finger, in characteristic disdain,205 and say: There is the was, looking as if it pointed to an eternal existence, - making its subject, of course, unbegotten and unmade, and on that account worthy of being supposed to be Matter. Well now, for my own part, I shall resort to no affected protestation,206 but simply reply that “was” may be predicated of everything - even of a thing which has been created, which was born, which once was not, and which is not your Matter. For of everything which has being, from whatever source it has it, whether it has it by a beginning or without a beginning, the word “was” will be predicated from the very fact that it exists. To whatever thing the first tense207 of the verb is applicable for definition, to the same will be suitable the later form208 of the verb, when it has to descend to relation. “Est” (it is) forms the essential part209 of a definition, “erat” (it was) of a relation. Such are the trifles and subtleties of heretics, who wrest and bring into question the simple meaning of the commonest words. A grand question it is, to be sure,210 whether “the earth was,” which was made! The real point of discussion is, whether “being without form, and void,” is a state which is more suitable to that which was created, or to that of which it was created, so that the predicate (was) may appertain to the same thing to which the subject (that which was) also belongs.211
Chap. XXVIII. - A Curious Inconsistency in Hermogenes Exposed. Certain Expressions in the History of Creation Vindicated in the True Sense.
But we shall show not only that this condition212 agreed with this earth of ours, but that 493 it did not agree with that other (insisted on by Hermogenes). For, inasmuch as pure Matter was thus subsistent with God,213 without the interposition indeed of any element at all (because as yet there existed nothing but itself and God), it could not of course have been invisible. Because, although Hermogenes contends that darkness was inherent in the substance of Matter, a position which we shall have to meet in its proper place, (see below, ch. xxx. p. 494.) yet darkness is visible even to a human being (for the very fact that there is the darkness is an evident one), much more is it so to God. If indeed it214 had been invisible, its quality would not have been by any means discoverable. How, then, did Hermogenes find out215 that that substance was “without form,” and confused and disordered, which, as being invisible, was not palpable to his senses? If this mystery was revealed to him by God, he ought to give us his proof. I want to know also, whether (the substance in question) could have been described as “void.” That certainly is “void” which is imperfect. Equally certain is it, that nothing can be imperfect but that which is made; it is imperfect when it is not fully made.216 Certainly, you admit. Matter, therefore, which was not made at all, could not have been imperfect; and what was not imperfect was not “void.” Having no beginning, because it was not made, it was also unsusceptible of any void-condition.217 For this void-condition is an accident of beginning. The earth, on the contrary, which was made, was deservedly called “void.” For as soon as it was made, it had the condition of being imperfect, previous to its completion.
Chap. XXIX. - The Gradual Development of Cosmical Order out of Chaos in the Creation, Beautifully Stated.
God, indeed, consummated all His works in a due order; at first He paled them out,218 as it were, in their unformed elements, and then He arranged them219 in their finished beauty. For He did not all at once inundate light with the splendour of the sun, nor all at once temper darkness with the moon’s assuaging ray.220 The heaven He did not all at once bedeck221 with constellations and stars, nor did He at once fill the seas with their teeming monsters.222 The earth itself He did not endow with its varied fruitfulness all at once; but at first He bestowed upon it being, and then He filled it, that it might not be made in vain.223 For thus says Isaiah: “He created it not in vain; He formed it to be inhabited.” (Isa_45:18) Therefore after it was made, and while awaiting its perfect state,224 it was “without form, and void:” “void” indeed, from the very fact that it was without form (as being not yet perfect to the sight, and at the same time unfurnished as yet with its other qualities);225 and “without form,” because it was still covered with waters, as if with the rampart of its fecundating moisture,226 by which is produced our flesh, in a form allied with its own. For to this purport does David say:227 “The earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof; the world, and all that dwell therein: He hath rounded it upon the seas, and on the streams hath He established it.” (Psa_24:1) It was when the waters were withdrawn into their hollow abysses that the dry land became conspicuous,228 which was hitherto covered with its watery envelope. Then it forthwith becomes “visible,”229 God saying, “Let the water be gathered together into one mass,230 and let the dry land appear.” (Gen_1:9) “Appear,” says He, not “be made.” It had been already made, only in its invisible condition it was then waiting231 to appear. “Dry,” because it was about to become such by its severance from the moisture, but yet “land.” “And God called the dry land Earth,” (Gen_1:10) not Matter. And so, when it afterwards attains its perfection, it ceases to be accounted void, when God declares, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed after its kind, and cording to its likeness, and the fruit-tree yielding fruit, whose seed is in itself, after its kind.” (Gen_1:11) Again: “Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, after their kind.” (Gen_1:24) Thus the divine Scripture accomplished its full order. For to that, which it had at first described as “without form (invisible) and void,” it gave both visibility and completion. Now no other Matter was “without form (invisible) and void.” 494
Henceforth, then, Matter will have to be visible and complete. So that I must232 see Matter, since it has become visible. I must likewise recognize it as a completed thing, so as to be able to gather from it the herb bearing seed, and the tree yielding fruit, and that living creatures, made out of it, may minister to my need. Matter, however, is nowhere,233 but the Earth is here, confessed to my view. I see it, I enjoy it, ever since it ceased to be “without form (invisible), and void.” Concerning it most certainly did Isaiah speak when he said, “Thus saith the Lord that created the heavens, He was the God that formed the earth, and made it.” (Isa_45:18) The same earth for certain did He form, which He also made. Now how did He form234 it? Of course by saying, “Let the dry land appear.” (Gen_1:9) Why does He command it to appear, if it were not previously invisible? His purpose was also, that He might thus prevent His having made it in vain, by rendering it visible, and so fit for use. And thus, throughout, proofs arise to us that this earth which we inhabit is the very same which was both created and formed235 by God, and that none other was “Without form, and void,” than that which had been created and formed. It therefore follows that the sentence, “Now the earth was without form, and void,” applies to that same earth which God mentioned separately along with the heaven.236
Chap. XXX. - Another Passage in the Sacred History of the Creation, Released from the Mishandling of Hermogenes.
The following words will in like manner apparently corroborate the conjecture of Hermogenes, “And darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the water; (Gen_1:2) as if these blended237 substances, presented us with arguments for his massive pile of Matter.238 Now, so discriminating an enumeration of certain and distinct elements (as we have in this passage), which severally designates” darkness,” “the deep” “the Spirit of God,” “the waters,” forbids the inference that anything confused or (from such confusion) uncertain is meant. Still more, when He ascribed to them their own places,239 “darkness on the face of the deep,” “the Spirit upon the face of the waters,” He repudiated all confusion in the substances; and by demonstrating their separate position,240 He demonstrated also their distinction. Most absurd, indeed, would it be that Matter, which is introduced to our view as “without form,” should have its “formless” condition maintained by so many words indicative of form,241 without any intimation of what that confused body242 is, which must of course be supposed to be unique,243 since it is without form.244 For that which is without form is uniform; but even245 that which is without form, when it is blended together246 from various component parts,247 must necessarily have one outward appearance;248 and it has not any appearance, until it has the one appearance (which comes) from many parts combined.249 Now Matter either had those specific parts250 within itself, from the words indicative of which it had to be understood - I mean “darkness,” and “the deep,” and “the Spirit,” and “the waters” - or it had them not. If it had them, how is it introduced as being “without form?”251 If it had them not, how does it become known?252
Chap. XXXI. - A Further Vindication of the Scripture Narrative of the Creation, Against a Futile View of Hermogenes.
But this circumstance, too, will be caught at, that Scripture meant to indicate of the heaven only, and this earth of yours,253 that God made it in the beginning, while nothing of the kind is said of the above-mentioned specific parts;254 and therefore that these, which are not described as having been made, appertain to unformed Matter. To this point255 also we must give an answer. Holy I Scripture would be sufficiently explicit, if it had declared that the heaven and the earth, as the very highest works of creation, were made by God, possessing of course their own special appurtenances,256 which might be understood to be implied in these highest works themselves. Now the appurtenances of the heaven and the earth, made then in the beginning, were the darkness and the deep, and the spirit, and the waters. For the depth and the darkness underlay the earth. Since 495 the deep was under the earth, and the darkness was over the deep, undoubtedly both the darkness and the deep were under the earth. Below the heaven, too, lay the spirit257 and the waters. For since the waters were over the earth, which they covered, whilst the spirit was over the waters, both the spirit and the waters were alike over the earth. Now that which is over the earth, is of course under the heaven. And even as the earth brooded over the deep and the darkness, so also did the heaven brood over the spirit and the waters, and embrace them. Nor, indeed, is there any novelty in mentioning only that which contains, as pertaining to the whole,258 and understanding that which is contained as included in it, in its character of a portion.259 Suppose now I should say the city built a theatre and a circus, but the stage260 was of such and such a kind, and the statues were on the canal, and the obelisk was reared above them all, would it follow that, because I did not distinctly state that these specific things261 were made by the city, they were therefore not made by it along with the circus and the theatre? Did I not, indeed, refrain from specially mentioning the formation of these particular things because they were implied in the things which I had already said were made, and might be understood to be inherent in the things in which they were contained? But this example may be an idle one as being derived from a human circumstance; I will take another, which has the authority of Scripture itself. It says that “God made man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.” (Gen_2:7) Now, although it here mentions the nostrils,262 it does not say that they were made by God; so again it speaks of skin263 and bones, and flesh and eyes, and sweat and blood, in subsequent passages, (see Gen_2:21, Gen_2:23; Gen_3:5, Gen_3:19; Gen_4:10) and yet it never intimated that they had been created by God. What will Hermogenes have to answer? That the human limbs must belong to Matter, because they are not specially mentioned as objects of creation? Or are they included in the formation of man? In like manner, the deep and the darkness, and the spirit and the waters, were as members of the heaven and the earth. For in the bodies the limbs were made, in the bodies the limbs too were mentioned. No element but what is a member of that element in which it is contained. But all elements are contained in the heaven and the earth.
Chap. XXXII. - The Account of the Creation in Genesis a General One. Corroborated, However, by Many Other Passages of the Old Testament, Which Give Account of Specific Creations. Further Cavillings Confuted.
This is the answer I should give in defence of the Scripture before us, for seeming here to set forth264 the formation of the heaven and the earth, as if (they were) the sole bodies made. It could not but know that there were those who would at once in the bodies understand their several members also, and therefore it employed this concise mode of speech. But, at the same time, it foresaw that there would be stupid and crafty men, who, after paltering with the virtual meaning,265 would require for the several members a word descriptive of their formation too. It is therefore because of such persons, that Scripture in other passages teaches us of the creation of the individual parts. You have Wisdom saying, “But before the depths was I brought forth,” (Pro_8:24) in order that you may believe that the depths were also “brought forth” - that is, created - just as we create sons also, though we “bring them forth.” It matters not whether the depth was made or born, so that a beginning be accorded to it, which however would not be, if it were subjoined266 to matter. Of darkness, indeed, the Lord Himself by Isaiah says, “I formed the light, and I created darkness.” (Isa_45:7) Of the wind267 also Amos says, “He that strengtheneth the thunder,268 and createth the wind, and declareth His Christ268 unto men;” (Amo_4:13) thus showing that that wind was created which was reckoned with the formation of the earth, which was wafted over the waters, balancing and refreshing and animating all things: not (as some suppose) meaning God Himself by the spirit,269 on the ground that “God is a Spirit,” (Joh_4:24) because the waters would not be able to bear up their Lord; but He speaks of that spirit of which the winds consist, as He says by Isaiah, “Because my spirit went forth from me, and I made every blast.”270 In like manner the 496 same Wisdom says of the waters, “Also when He made the fountains strong, things which271 are under the sky, I was fashioning272 them along with Him.” (Pro_8:28) Now, when we prove that these particular things were created by God, although they are only mentioned in Genesis, without any intimation of their having been made, we shall perhaps receive from the other side the reply, that these were made, it is true,273 but out of Matter, since the very statement of Moses, “And darkness was on the face of the deep, and the spirit of God moved on the face of the waters,” (Gen_1:2) refers to Matter, as indeed do all those other Scriptures here and there,274 which demonstrate that the separate parts were made out of Matter. It must follow, then,275 that as earth consisted of earth, so also depth consisted of depth, and darkness of darkness, and the wind and waters of wind and waters. And, as we said above, (chap. xxx., towards the end.) Matter could not have been without form, since it had specific parts, which were formed out of it - although as separate things276 - unless, indeed, they were not separate, but were the very same with those out of which they came. For it is really impossible that those specific things, which are set forth under the same names, should have been diverse; because in that case277 the operation of God might seem to be useless,278 if it made things which existed already; since that alone would be a creation,279 when things came into being, which had not been (previously) made. Therefore, to conclude, either Moses then pointed to Matter when he wrote the words: “And darkness was on the face of the deep, and the spirit of God moved on the face of the waters;” or else, inasmuch as these specific parts of creation are afterwards shown in other passages to have been made by God, they ought to have been with equal explicitness280 shown to have been made out of the Matter which, according to you, Moses had previously mentioned;281 or else, finally, if Moses pointed to those specific parts, and not to Matter, I want to know where Matter has been pointed out at all.
Chap. XXXIII. - Statement of the True Doctrine Concerning Matter. Its Relation to God’s Creation of the World.
But although Hermogenes finds it amongst his own colourable pretences282 (for it was not in his power to discover it in the Scriptures of God), it is enough for us, both that it is certain that all things were made by God, and that there is no certainty whatever that they were made out of Matter. And even if Matter had previously existed, we must have believed that it had been really made by God, since we maintained (no less) when we held the rule of faith to be,283 that nothing except God was uncreated.284 Up to this point there is room for controversy, until Matter is brought to the test of the Scriptures, and fails to make good its case.285 The conclusion of the whole is this: I find that there was nothing made, except out of nothing; because that which I find was made, I know did not once exist. Whatever286 was made out of something, has its origin in something made: for instance, out of the ground was made the grass, and the fruit, and the cattle, and the form of man himself; so from the waters were produced the animals which swim and fly. The original fabrics287 out of which such creatures were produced I may call their materials,288 but then even these were created by God.
FOOTNOTES
138 Sophiam suam scilicet.
139 Apud.
140 Or the “iniquit” may indicate the very words of “Wisdom.”
141 Fontes. Although Oehler prefers Junius’ reading “montes,” he yet retains “fontes” because Tertullian (in ch. xxxii. below) has the unmistakable reading “fontes” in a like connection.
142 Compingens.
143 Ad quem: the expression is masculine.
144 Commendet.
145 “Non fini subditam” is Oehler’s better reading than the old “sibi subditam.”
146 Condidit: created.
147 Intra Dominum.
148 Scilicet.
149 Cœpti agitari.
150 Multo magis non capit.
151 Extra Dominum.
152 Sensu.
153 Nedum.
154 Proinde.
155 On this version of Psa_45:1, and its application by Tertullian, see our Anti-Marcion (p. 299, note 5).
156 Nisi quod.
157 Originale instrumentum: which may mean “the document which treats of the origin of all things.”
158 Principium.
159 Corpulentum.
160 Substantivum aliquid.
161 De cetero.
162 Non ab re tamen.
163 Illam…quæ.
164 Condidit: “created.”
165 In qua: in Wisdom.
166 Wisdom.
167 De cogitatu.
168 Species facti.
169 Proinde.
170 Plane.
171 Dum ostenditur: which Oehler and Rigalt. construe as “donec ostendatur.” One reading has “dum non ostenditur,” “so long as it is not shown.”
172 Ea conditione.
173 In totum habebat intelligi.
174 Quid unde protulerit: properly a double question = “what was produced, and whence?”
175 Unde unde…dumne.
176 Quid unde protulerit: properly a double question = “what was produced, and whence?”
177 Adoro: reverently admire.
178 Officina.
179 Redigit in.
180 Inconditam: we have combined the two senses of the word.
