Chapter XXXIII.—Other Speculations of Hermogenes, About Matter and Some of Its Adjuncts, Shown to Be Absurd. For Instance, Its Alleged Infinity.

My observations touching the site408    De situ. of Matter, as also concerning its mode409    Oehler here restores the reading “quod et de modo,” instead of “de motu,” for which Pamelius contends. Oehler has the mss. on his side, and Fr. Junius, who interprets “modo” here to mean “mass or quantity.” Pamelius wishes to suit the passage to the preceding context (see ch. xxxvi.); Junius thinks it is meant rather to refer to what follows, by which it is confirmed. have one and the same object in view—to meet and refute your perverse positions. You put Matter below God, and thus, of course, you assign a place to it below God. Therefore Matter is local.410    In loco. Now, if it is local, it is within locality; if within locality, it is bounded411    Determinatur. by the place within which it is; if it is bounded, it has an outline,412    Lineam extremam. which (painter as you are in your special vocation) you know is the boundary to every object susceptible of outline.  Matter, therefore, cannot be infinite, which, since it is in space, is bounded by space; and being thus determinable by space, it is susceptible of an outline. You, however, make it infinite, when you say: “It is on this account infinite, because it is always existent.”  And if any of your disciples should choose to meet us by declaring your meaning to be that Matter is infinite in time, not in its corporeal mass,413    Modo corporis: or “bulk.” still what follows will show that (you mean) corporeal infinity to be an attribute of Matter, that it is in respect of bulk immense and uncircumscribed.  “Wherefore,” say you, “it is not fabricated as a whole, but in its parts.”414    Nec tota fabricatur, sed partes ejus. This perhaps means: “It is not its entirety, but its parts, which are used in creation.” In bulk, therefore, is it infinite, not in time. And you contradict yourself415    Obduceris: here a verb of the middle voice. when you make Matter infinite in bulk, and at the same time ascribe place to it, including it within space and local outline. But yet at the same time I cannot tell why God should not have entirely formed it,416    In reference to the opinion above mentioned, “Matter is not fabricated as whole, but in parts.” unless it be because He was either impotent or envious. I want therefore to know the moiety of that which was not wholly formed (by God), in order that I may understand what kind of thing the entirety was. It was only right that God should have made it known as a model of antiquity,417    Ut exemplarium antiquitatis. to set off the glory of His work.

CAPUT XXXVIII.

De situ materiae id tracto, quod et de motu , ut perversitatem tuam traducat. Subjacentem facis Deo materiam, et utique locum illi qui sit infra Deum. In loco ergo materia. Si in loco, ergo intra locum: si intra locum, ergo determinatur a loco, intra 0232B quem est: si determinatur, habet lineam extremam, quam , quantum proprie pictor, agnoscis finem esse omni rei, cujus linea extrema est. Non ergo erit infinita materia, quae dum in loco est , a loco determinatur, et dum determinatur ab illo, extrema eum linea patitur. At tu infinitam facis, dicens: Infinita est autem, eo quod semper est. Et si quis discipulorum tuorum voluerit argumentari, quasi infinitatem aevo, non modo corporis intelligi velis: atquin corporaliter infinitam, corporaliter immensam et incircumscriptam, sequentia ostendunt. Unde, inquis, nec tota fabricatur, sed partes ejus. Adeo corpore infinita, non tempore est. Et obduceris , corpore eam infinitam faciens, cum locum ei adscribens, intra locum et extremam loci lineam includis. Sed 0232C tamen, cur non totam eam formaverit Deus, non scio nisi qua aut invalidus, aut invidus. Itaque dimidium ejus quae non tota formata sit quaero, ut qualis tota fuerit agnoscam. Debuerat enim Deus ut exemplarium antiquitatis ad gloriam operis palam fecisse.